Good Relations in
Scotland
A Short Brief
November 2012
2
GOOD RELATIONS & EQUALITY: A SHORT BRIEF
Introduction
The general equality duty requires public authorities, in the exercise of
their functions, to have due regard to the need to:
 Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and
other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act
2010
 Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a
relevant protected characteristic and those who do not
 Foster good relations between people who share a protected
characteristic and those who do not
Good relations further involves having due regard, in particular, to the
need to "tackle prejudice” and “promote understanding" between people
who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
The general duty applies to public bodies in Scotland including Local
Authorities, the NHS, the Police, and Higher and Further Education
bodies.
The duty relates to the following protected characteristics: age, disability,
gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or
belief and sexual orientation in respect of all three aims above. However,
in relation to marriage and civil partnership, only the duty to eliminate
unlawful discrimination applies.
The duty also applies to private or voluntary organisations that are
carrying out a public function.
Good Relations
The good relations duty has its origins in the Race Relations Act (RRA)
1976, Section 71 of which placed a general requirement on local
authorities only to promote good relations between people of different
racial groups. The RRA requirement on good relations was only tested
once in court, in relation to a local authority cricket ground being used for
an apartheid era match involving an all white South African team.
The old Section 71 duty was formally incorporated into the Race Equality
Duty and its application extended to all listed Public Bodies in 2002.
3
Elements of the good relations duty can be seen in the Disability
Equality Duty (2006) which required public bodies to “promote positive
attitudes towards disabled persons". As above, the Disability Duty was
not formally tested in court.
The wording of the new duty is instructive. Whereas previously public
bodies were required to "promote" good relations, now they are required
to "foster" them. This suggests that good relations are dynamic and
changeable over time and are not necessarily resolvable by any single
intervention.
The general duty recognises that policies in housing, criminal justice and
in the allocation of resources in particular, could give rise to (a sense of)
injustice amongst particular social groups, which could consequently
give rise to tension. Public bodies in Scotland, who are listed for the
specific duties, are required to pay due regard to good relations through
equality impact assessment in their procurement, when setting equality
outcomes, and in their staffing and service delivery policies.
Equally, the further definition of “good relations” as also having due
regard to the need to "tackle prejudice” and “promote understanding"
between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do
not, recognises that different approaches may be needed to tackle
different challenges.
“Promoting understanding” suggests that greater contact between
communities of interest may lead to better relations – for example in
intergenerational work or work with new migrants. “Tackling prejudice”
implies that more than misunderstandings or misapprehensions exist
which might need more assertive action from a public authority – for
example on Gypsy /Traveller issues or disputes over conflicting rights.
"Good” & "Bad" Relations
Surprisingly little conceptual work has been done to define and refine
what good relations might be. Often a default position of "bad relations"
has been adopted leading some to describe "good" as the absence of
"bad" things - i.e. good relations equal no rioting, few hate crime
incidents, or overt segregation in housing.
However with the development of the EHRC’s Good Relations
Measurement Framework (GRMF), specific domains of life have been
assessed and identified as starting to isolate what we might mean by
"good", and how we might measure them.
4
In this regard the four domains of good relations have now overtaken the
negative or deficit model.
These four domains are:




Attitudes
Interactions
Personal security
Participation
Whilst these domains may not exhaustively define what we mean by
"good", they do allow, through cross reference to public surveys such as
the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, a means of tracking and monitoring
developments or changes in the mood of a society and the possibility of
checking how the activity of an organisation can have an effect on them.
Bad Relations and their consequences
Traditionally, impacts of bad relations have been associated with the
costs of policing or investigating hate crime, the individual and social
impacts of community tension, the economic costs of interventions and
of incarceration.
The more sophisticated approach heralded by the GRMF places more of
an emphasis on concepts of social capital and the cumulative but often
unnoticed impact of policy. For example, negative attitudes towards
migrant workers or people with mental health problems can lead to
greater segregation and isolation. This can reinforce feelings of social
ennui which can have impacts in labour force or market segregation,
stifling the emergence of talent or entrepreneurship if such negative
attitudes are internalised in the subject community.
Internalisation can also give rise to feelings of low self esteem and lack
of confidence which could explain, for example, lower levels of public
participation. Low self esteem can also lead to poorer health and
wellbeing, as reported in ‘Towards a Healthier LGBT Scotland’ (2002).
Fear of others can also limit impact on our sense of personal security - if
women or groups who experience prejudice feel intimidated travelling on
public transport at night, what impact could this have on their opportunity
for social interactions, their visibility or presence in the community or
public life, or their economic prospects? In turn, these withdrawals or
absences can reinforce negative perceptions that "they keep to
themselves", and further limit people’s access to life opportunities.
5
The role of public policy
It is tempting to view bad relations as big and challenging issues
involving ingrained attitudes, fixed and immoveable positions or
competition for resources, which our interventions can only ameliorate,
but public policy can and does have the potential to impact negatively on
community relations. If we choose to not spend public money on
accessible housing and transport, we must accept that a proportion of
our communities will remain institutionalised, dependent and workless.
The way that we design our housing can enhance or erode a person’s
sense of security and independence, thus limiting their potential
participation. A decision to close crèche provision in a college could
prevent parents and carers from being able to participate in education.
Public policy can act to exclude in subtle and often unconscious ways,
which both limit lives and reinforce stereotypes, prejudices and attitudes.
Harnessing Public Policy
The Equality Act and its associated general and specific duties have the
potential to set a framework of analysis, monitoring and evaluation of
public sector policy and practice in this area. The requirement to pay due
regard to the need to foster good relations in equality impact
assessment, in procurement, and in setting outcomes should all
contribute to better relations. But if the concept of good relations is not
widely understood outside the equality community, are these ideas and
aspirations ever likely to be realised?
Much work that could be articulated as being of a good relations
character takes place on a daily basis in our workplaces and
communities, often viewed as being just "part of the job".
Neighbourhood wardens, social and community development staff,
district nurses and police officers all make a daily contribution to the
stability and inclusiveness of our communities, but would struggle to
articulate their work as being "good relations work". The difficulty the
Commission faces is translating our conceptions of “good relations” into
the language of policy and practice evident in Scotland. The next section
considers the major policy drivers and opportunities open to the
Commission.
6
Relevant Public Policy in Scotland
Good relations agendas can be identified in the current Scottish National
Performance Framework, although often they are not explicitly described
in “Commission terms”. As well as the national outcome on inequality,
good relations have a bearing on national outcomes such as:
 We live our lives safe from crime, disorder and danger
 We have strong, resilient and supportive communities where
people take responsibility for their own actions and how they affect
others
 We take pride in a strong, fair and inclusive national identity
Good relations also have interrelationships with national outcomes on
health, education and employment as suggested above.
However, as well as the formal measurements of practice against which
Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs) and Community Planning
Partnerships will be measured, there are also a range of policy drivers
which we suggest have strong links with concepts of Good Relations.
These could be summarised as including:




Localism agendas around place and regeneration
The assets based approach
Personalisation and Independent Living
Criminal justice focus on preventing reoffending and supporting
victims
Moving Forward
The primary barrier to evidencing good relations is perhaps the issue of
conceptualisation and language. As alluded to above, the terminology of
good relations is not well understood outside of the equality movement.
To achieve recognition of good relations, or to further community
cohesion work, we may need to consider dropping the phrase almost
entirely from our lexicon, or accept that it has a limited compliancecentred application.
The difficulty is to achieve a balance where work on community
cohesion, which has a distinctive good relations flavour, can be
indentified and captured without requiring a wholesale re-engineering of
language and conceptualisation amongst Public Authorities.
7