SINGLE EQUALITY BODY: ISSUES PAPER
A paper for the Equality & Diversity Forum
Dr Clare Collins
Dr Clare Collins is a freelance consultant working in the public and voluntary sectors.
She is currently on a career break from the Senior Civil Service in the Lord Chancellor’s
Department. At LCD she was responsible for implementation of the Human Rights Act
and was a member of the Department’s Diversity Steering Group.
Comments on this paper should be sent to Clare Collins at ClareCollinsUK@aol.com or
to Patrick Grattan, secretary of the Forum, at taen@helptheaged.org.uk.
October 2002
1
SINGLE EQUALITY BODY: ISSUES PAPER
Introduction
This paper was commissioned by the Equality & Diversity Forum, a group comprising
organisations from across six equality ‘strands’ (race, age, gender, disability, belief and sexual
orientation), to consider the issues raised by the possible creation of a single equality body. The
paper is based on informal interviews with individuals from bodies across the six strands and with
key stakeholders. A group discussion of Forum members and stakeholders on the paper’s
findings also contributed greatly.
The paper is intended to be a tool to stimulate thinking and facilitate future discussions on this
subject. It does not and is not intended to be a Forum ‘position paper’. As such interviewees
were encouraged to think creatively and to explore their individual views rather than to set out
formal organisational positions.
In the course of the interviews important differences became apparent. Digging deeper below the
consensus on the high-level vision revealed important differences of emphasis in strategic
approach; and in the envisioned remit, values and style of the body. These in turn affected views
on the body’s functions, the skills and experience needed in its governance and staff, and its
organisational structure.
This paper explores in detail various strategic issues such as vision, values and style, and remit.
It then goes on to discuss implementation issues such as timing and change management. This
is followed by consideration of the body’s potential powers and functions. The paper ends by
looking at structural matters such as organisational structure, resources, geography and the
body’s relationship to Government.
Strategic issues
Areas of consensus
There are areas in which a good deal of agreement exists on which to build. Many interviewed
agreed that:







The body needed to be results-oriented.
Promotional/educational work was of key importance.
The remit for this should be clear and broad rather than tied to current
discrimination legislation.
The body should undertake both promotion and enforcement.
Culture change should be at the forefront with enforcement an important but
back-up tool - one to be employed strategically rather than in a reactive
manner.
The single body would enable the multi-faceted nature of identity and
discrimination to be identified and addressed both strategically and in relation to
individuals.
Both employment and public services needed to be covered.
Most interviewees appeared to have a common vision. This might roughly be summarised as:
2

To mainstream equality and diversity throughout society, so that barriers to opportunity
are eliminated and all individuals are treated and treat others with respect.
Important differences were revealed however as to the approach which should be taken to putting
this high-level aspiration into practice.
Individual, group-based or holistic?
One argument was for what was termed a “victim-centred” approach, focussing on combating the
discrimination experienced by individuals rather than specific communities or groups. The
individual should be at the heart of the agenda and the work. This would help avert the tension
between different strands (eg religion and sexual orientation) that would potentially be caused by
a group/community-centred approach. It was a more unifying vision.
Others saw the individual as an important part of the picture – particularly in giving the body a
grounding in reality and information on trends – but not central to the body’s strategy. This in turn
affected their views on the body’s functions. Thus for example it was argued that the body should
seek to ensure that individuals had access to advice and assistance elsewhere rather than the
body providing them with it direct. The body itself should identify and encourage the plugging of
gaps in provision and become directly involved in advice giving and casework only where
strategically necessary and desirable. Its role would primarily be of a filter referring individuals to
others for advice and assistance, with staff capable of identifying the small number of strategically
important cases/issues that the body itself should take further.
Those viewing the individual as only part of the picture themselves differed however. Some had
a more group-centred approach than others. They referred to the body’s “client groups” and
“constituencies” (ie the potentially discriminated against parties of the six strands); to the vital
importance of keeping in touch with and achieving credibility with these. This was considered
particularly important regarding the disability strand as the relevant legislation relates only to
people with disabilities rather than to society as a whole. Again the strategic emphasis affects
functions and structure. It was argued that the aim of achieving credibility with constituency
groups should strongly influence the body’s governance, staffing and methods of working. The
body should consult and work closely with constituent groups, who should be strongly
represented in decision-making and seen to be so.
For others the organisation’s focus should be holistic rather than on particular groups. The style
of the organisation should reach out to and seek to earn the respect of all. Any particular focus
should be audience not strand based. The body should appeal to the whole of society rather
seeing potentially discriminated groups as its constituencies. It should seek to overcome
suspicion/indifference among service delivers and employers who should be represented in the
body’s governance and take part in decision-making.
One stakeholder argued that if the new body were to be more attuned to individual/sectional
interests than to the interests of wider stakeholders such as service deliverers and the business
world, it would be less effective in combating discrimination. Prevention was the best strategy as
most victims of discrimination did not take any action. Prevention could only happen if the body
engaged effectively with all stakeholders to make discrimination better understood and no longer
acceptable.
At the group discussion of the issues raised in this paper it was suggested that strands needed to
move through a gradual process of individual to group to holistic focus; and that the various
strands were currently at different stages in this process. It was important to recognise this and
to avoid neatness for its own sake. The new body thus needed to adopt a flexible strategy
capable of adapting to the short, medium and longer term needs of each of the strands; and of
3
drawing on the benefits accrued from each stage in this process. For example the individual
focus was still of central importance to the belief strand, where caselaw needed to be built up in
the short to medium term; whereas for strands with an already extensive body of caselaw
enforcement was likely to be more strategically applied.
Values and style
Knock-on effects from the differences of emphasis described above were evident in terms of the
body’s values and style. These would have a strong practical effect on matters such as
recruitment and working methods.
Some interviewees argued that while needing to be passionate about equality the body should be
ready to exercise self-restraint and reach compromises with employers/service deliverers and
Government. To gain the respect and confidence of all it must be perceived as balanced and
without an axe to grind and not aiming to ‘push forward the frontiers’, leaving this role to others. It
should for example in exercising its key function of providing advice to government have a
strategic and careful approach and not go into NGO/campaigning mode. Strong NGOs would be
still be important for each strand.
There are echoes of Hepple’s argument that providing a voice for interest groups is not a job for
the Equality Commission but for NGOs and organised groups in the voluntary sector. Hepple
argues that the Commission’s “main objective is to act as an organ of government promoting
change in organisations and where appropriate, helping individuals to assert their rights”. Its
essential role is to “promote equality and ensure resources are focussed on the most important
strategic issues”. [p53]
As shown above however others argued that to be credible the body needed to be strongly in
touch with and representative of its “client groups”. It was argued that credibility also rested on
the body’s readiness to speak out strongly on controversial and difficult issues, although doing so
in a fair and even-handed manner. Some were of the view that employers and service providers
would go to the Commission for some but not all things and that this should be recognised rather
than ‘watering down’ the Commission.
Others argued in contrast that the body was ultimately a service organisation serving multi
dimensional clients and sectors. It should aim to be seen as a centre of excellence, the first port
of call for employers and those in public services on equality matters and should be governed and
work in a way that earned their confidence and respect – although respect did not equate with
popular. It should consequently place a high value on professionalism and expertise in its staff.
A stakeholder setting out the employers’ perspective argued that the key values for employers in
relation to the new body would be concepts such as professionalism; confidence; and respect.
To gain credibility with employers the new body would need to have not a superficial approach
but rather to properly work through the issues in a sustainable manner. The body’s leader would
need to have credibility with the employment world and need not indeed necessarily be drawn
from an equality organisation. He/she would need to be objective, fair and reasonable and not
driven solely by passion. It would not be effective if employers were to feel ‘bashed over the
head’. A stakeholder speaking from the trade union perspective advocated the importance of cooperative partnership with a variety of stakeholders including trade unions and NGOs as well as
employers and government.
Another stakeholder argued that unless the new body were to work in a way that engaged with
and was attuned to all stakeholders across society, including business, it would risk being denied
by government the powers of both promotion and enforcement. The view was already held in
some quarters that equality organisations were overly attuned to individual/sectional interests
successfully to carry out both of these roles.
4
The group discussion on the paper’s findings agreed that the body could not be a ‘grassroots’
organisation and that it would be important to have strong community groups and NGOs. The
extent to which the body could itself be a cutting edge, campaigning organisation was however
not resolved. While differing views were expressed some felt that they were not real differences
but the result of different understandings of what ‘campaigning’ meant. Others were of the view
however that a real fault line did exist between those who saw a core role of the organisation to
be that of leading and advancing a cause within society; and those who envisaged it sitting in the
middle of a complex picture and endeavouring to earn the respect of many stakeholders. It was
suggested by some however that the perception of this fault line itself resulted from differing
views of how change is achieved – whether it results from representing the interests of certain
groups or from working with all groups and selling the benefits of equality.
Those at the group discussion agreed however that the need discussed earlier in the paper to
respond to the differing short-medium-long term needs of the various strands, along with the
requirement to build partnerships with diverse stakeholders and to make decisions about
competing strategic priorities within limited resources, had important implications for the
organisation’s values and style. A high level of flexibility within a clear overarching vision would
be crucial to the body’s strategy and structure. Adaptability, co-operation, mutual trust,
transparency, sophistication and a strongly corporate approach would therefore be key
organisational values.
Remit
For some interviewees, the body’s work should essentially be one of change management
promoting culture change. Others however questioned whether the Commission should itself
seek to be a change agent or whether it should rather provide a strategic role working in tandem
with change agents.
Two specific areas of disagreement arose in relation to whether the body’s remit should include
the promotion of:


Human rights.
Social cohesion.
Human Rights
There were two areas of disagreement within this:


Whether the body should have a human rights remit at all.
If so, what this should mean strategically and structurally.
A human rights remit?
It has been argued in some quarters that it is politically unrealistic to expect the Government to
establish a separate Human Rights Commission (as exists in Northern Ireland and is to be
established in Scotland). Bringing human rights within the new body’s remit may therefore be the
only pragmatic means of achieving such a commission.
Some interviewees felt nonetheless that including human rights would over-stretch the body.
There was quite enough on the equality ‘plate’ already and calling for human rights to be included
would be a misdirection of energies. Further, while some human rights were evidently ‘equality
issues’ – eg the right to marriage – many were not - eg due process and false imprisonment. A
body incorporating all aspects of human rights and equality risked doing too much and therefore
5
diluting what could be achieved. It risked the equality dimension being subsumed and taking the
body into ‘murky waters’ such as family law cases. An effective human rights body would need to
be able to call the Government to order and would need a high calibre legal staff risking making
the organisation’s emphasis overly legalistic rather than focused on promotion and culture
change. This would be reinforced by the fact that sponsorship of a body with human rights
responsibility would inevitably rest with the Lord Chancellor’s Department (LCD), a ‘legal’
department.
The view was also expressed that including a human rights remit would make the process to
formulate the necessary legislation to establish the body more complex, thus delaying its
establishment.
Some however argued strongly not only that bringing in human rights would be the only means of
protecting the HRA; but also that equality was naturally a sub-set of human rights, as witness the
fact that most commissions internationally dealt with the two together. Both were about allowing
every individual to be treated and to treat others with respect. There were therefore philosophical
as well as pragmatic reasons to bring the two together.
What would this mean?
Those supporting bringing human rights and equality under the same roof varied however as to
what this might mean both strategically and practically. This in part reflected the strategic
emphasis placed by interviewees on individuals, groups or holism.
In terms of structure it was argued that to avoid specific equality issues being diluted, it would be
desirable to have a federal model with an overarching HRC linking equality strands that remained
co-operative but separate.
Some however preferred a fully integrated model promoting equality and human rights together.
It was argued that the overarching human rights remit could help break down the silos between
the different strands and avert the creation and perceptions of a hierarchy within equalities. By
introducing a completely new element to the equality work the human rights remit would enhance
the potential to create a truly new organisation, rather than a mere merger of existing bodies and
interest groups.
A human rights remit would also promote the holistic approach to equality and enable the
Commission to promote this strategy and style more effectively and successfully. This would
enable it to gain wider acceptance as a body benefiting all rather than special interest groups
only.
It was argued that human rights would make it more possible legally and in practice for the body
to go beyond the confines of discrimination legislation in its promotional work. It would help
ensure that the equality agenda went beyond and was seen to go beyond employment issues to
encompass public services. In this aspect of the work there would be considerable synergy in
terms of staff skills and potential for efficiencies of scale. The same body could undertake the
work of promoting/monitoring the equality public duty (currently only applicable to race) and the
HRA positive duty; and in turn public authorities would be able to audit them together.
For some such promotional rather than enforcement work should be the main focus of the human
rights strategy, thus averting the risk of an overly legalistic bias. Indeed the current overly
legalistic interpretation of human rights was part of the problem. The body could help correct this
by promoting the mainstreaming of human rights and equality to achieve culture change. It was
argued that as there was no ‘market gap’ in relation to assisting individuals to bring human rights
cases the body might only need promotional and amicus powers in respect to human rights. The
6
gap that needed to be filled related to promotion not enforcement, ie the current lack of an
independent body promoting the human rights culture.
For others however the main benefits of the human rights remit lay in the enforcement powers. It
would expand and strengthen the body’s ability to protect individuals from potential rather than
actual discrimination. It would enable the body to support individuals and issues not covered by
the current or proposed discrimination legislation (eg domestic violence, forced marriage, right to
life of disabled and older people). It was argued that seemingly ‘non equality’ human rights such
as due process and false imprisonment in fact had a strong equality element when related to the
experiences of Muslims since 9/11. An equality body with a human rights remit would have been
of real practical assistance to the affected individuals. Without it the new body would be unable
to address the most burning issues for the Muslim community.
Social Cohesion
Some interviewees expressed support for the new body’s strategic remit including the promotion
of social/national cohesion. For some this was a priority area. It would be a vital part of the
body’s work in relation to race and religion. This work should go beyond the law and education to
identify other initiatives aimed at reducing discrimination/marginalisation and increasing the
participation of excluded groups. For some having a social cohesion role would enable the body
to play a key role in pushing forward this agenda and developing the definition of cohesion to
encompass other key areas of societal division (eg sexual orientation and religion) and
segregation (people with disabilities). By bringing together the various strands and learning from
each others differences and strengths the body would itself be playing an important modelling
role in this regard. Some also argued that the body should have a remit to promote
responsibilities as well as rights and that its work could be one of promoting civil renewal and
citizenship.
One stakeholder suggested that while the achievement of social cohesion might underpin the
body’s philosophy it was unlikely to be given a remit proactively to take this agenda forward. One
interviewee questioned whether the social cohesion agenda should in fact be expanded to the
extent described above. If it did remain essentially centred on issues relating to race and religion,
governance and staff structures would need to have more credibility with grass roots communities
than would be possible for a single equality body with a broad remit. A separate national
community relations organisation might be preferable, to which local structures based on the
current network of Race Equality Councils (RECs) could relate.
At the group discussion it was agreed that a partnership role with those taking forward the social
cohesion/regeneration agenda would be important in helping the body achieve its strategic aims
of reducing inequality and the by-products (such as hate crimes) of the current lack of harmony
across the diverse groups in society; and of enabling all to participate as full citizens in society.
Identifying and measuring success
Interviewees were asked to comment on what success would look like and how the body would
know how far along the track it was to achieving it. Most agreed that success would mean the
mainstreaming of equalities throughout society so that:



the rights of all individuals/communities were respected
a more representative workforce was achieved
significant disparities in service outcomes were closed.
Suggested tracking methods included:
7



Disaggregated public polling re attitudes to equality/human rights,
experience/perception of fair treatment in jobs and services, views on other
groups
monitoring levels of complaints/litigation (which should be expected initially to
rise but ultimately to fall)
the development of ‘health check’ indicators in key results domains eg health,
education, employment, justice system, racial violence.
This information would feed into the body’s strategy. It was important however to differentiate
between the above and methods for measuring the outcomes for which the body was directly
responsible and against which its performance should be judged. Key performance indicators
could include measurement of:


satisfaction with its service delivery through customer/stakeholder satisfaction surveys
public awareness/approval of its work through public polling.
It was also suggested that formal indicators did not give the whole story and should be
supplemented by informal intelligence gathering to inform decision-making.
Powers and Functions
There was a degree of consensus on powers and functions. Where areas of
disagreement/difference of emphasis occurred these often flowed from the strategic differences
highlighted earlier in the paper.
Existing powers/functions
Equivalence of powers
There was a general consensus that the strands must have equivalent if not identical powers in
relation to employment and that it would be desirable for the body to have a positive duty to
promote equality across all the strands. The goal should be for harmonisation upwards and
across. There was general agreement on the importance of aiming to ensure that the body’s
remit in relation to its promotional/educational work ran as wide as possible and beyond the
confines of the discrimination legislation. However a caveat was raised as to whether this would
be legally possible with the argument made that a human rights remit would assist this.
While there was a high agreement level on the desirability of harmonisation there was also a
degree of recognition of the limits of what seemed currently achievable. It was questioned
whether a single Equality Act, while highly desirable, was on the immediate political agenda. It
was argued however that the new body once established would be in a stronger position to lobby
for it either itself or to promote support for the SEA within business who would be well placed to
put it on the agenda.
It was important in the meantime for the reason for the difference in powers to be communicated
to and understood by the public. Otherwise it risked being interpreted as ‘favouritism’ thus
alienating those who should most support the new body. For similar reasons a fair, transparent
and well-communicated system of resource allocation would be needed (see Structure section
below).
8
Promotion and enforcement
The issue of promotion/enforcement, and the role of the body in relation to employers,
brings us to a clear example of the strategic differences highlighted earlier in the paper
producing different views on the body’s functions and work (with in turn evident
implications for governance, recruitment, organisational structure and
culture).
There was widespread consensus on the importance of the body retaining the power both to
promote and to enforce. It was argued that promotion and enforcement were tools on one
continuum aimed at mainstreaming equality (awareness raising, advice giving, supporting cases,
monitoring, inspection, sanction where persistent failure). To separate one or other off would
undermine the whole. Further:




A promotion only body would lack authority and its strategic/ information sources
be impoverished.
An enforcement only body would:
o lose the element of promoting good practice leaving it with a stick but no
carrot and
o would not have the same incentive to build relationships and enter into
dialogue.
o Businesses would not wish to come to such a body for fear of suffering
reputational damage.
o The moral/business case for E & D and its association with culture
change rather than legal issues would be diminished.
A split regime would lead to confusion eg who should be responsible for
guidance on the public duty with its legal and promotional aspects?
The strategic focus would shift according to the political context making a range
of tools necessary (eg enforcement becoming perhaps more effective than
promotion in a hostile context).
There was strong consensus on the importance of establishing links at a strategic level between
the promotion and enforcement functions, however structured:




The work of both functions should inform the other with a common overarching
strategy
information should be provided on trends/patterns and acted upon appropriately
(cf the NZ HRC identified a series of complaints regarding sexual harassment in
the armed forces and brought these to the attention of the military leading to a
successful joint project.)
strategically important cases/issues should be identified which the body might
want to support/intervene in. Other cases should be filtered out by the advice
function and referred elsewhere.
The body should seek to build capacity in the voluntary sector to deal with nonstrategic cases where this was lacking (perhaps by contracting out/franchising?)
A stakeholder commenting on the employers’ perspective highlighted the importance of the new
body providing a one-stop shop where advice could be sought by employers on a completely
confidential basis. If promotion and enforcement were to be done by separate bodies the two
should be ‘cemented together’. Some interviewees argued that it should be possible to build in
appropriate and transparent safeguards to ensure the confidence of employers/service providers
and prevent conflicts of interest. Chinese walls could be established within the organisation. (cf
the CRE’s successful management of their advice and enforcement relationship with CPS).
9
An alternative method might be to establish one-stop advice/information shops at arms-length
from but strategically linked to the body. These might be locally provided, with perhaps a network
of centres established based on the old RECs.
It was argued by one interviewee however that such a network would mean that perceived and
actual conflicts of interest would be much stronger and more difficult to overcome structurally than
in a central model. This did not mean however that the model should be abandoned. Rather the
network of local centres should concentrate on aiding complainants. The job of providing
advice/information to employers/service deliverers should go to another body completely - eg to
local authorities.
Another interviewee suggested that it was indeed desirable for the body not to provide advice to
employers at all. This would keep the body victim-centred and focussed on discrimination. The
interests of victims and not businesses should be paramount. Educational work should therefore
be as victim-centred as possible eg increasing awareness of the legal protection offered
minorities, with the role in relation to business being limited to promoting equality good practice.
Other interviewees in contrast called for one to one dedicated advice to be provided by the body
to employers and service deliverers. This could be done by means of an advisory arm rather
than by the body itself, with the two sectors dealt with together, rather than separately, and
treated as of equal importance. A distinction was made during the group discussion between the
proactive roles of promotion (identifying and disseminating priorities and good practice) and
enforcement; and the essentially reactive role of giving advice - this did not necessarily need to
be carried out by the new body itself.
Research/information
The group discussion on the paper agreed that the organisation would first need a thorough
understanding of the nature and causes of discrimination within each of the strands before it
could decide on its strategic priorities.
A stakeholder commenting on the employers’ perspective commented that the evidence base
would be key if the organisation were to be effective and credible. It was vital to ensure that the
business case for equality was proven on both an individual and a collective level and in relation
to customers as well as employees. This made research a key function and it was vital that the
new body be prepared to share information. It also needed to be recognised that the business
case for diversity and its evidence base needed constantly to be updated. Futures thinking
needed to be incorporated, thus for example providing information enabling businesses to
understand how diversity would impact on future markets.
Interviewees also pointed out that the body’s monitoring role would be of key importance,
particularly in relation to the new strands. For example it was not known how many Moslems
lived in this country owing to problems with statistical classification. It was important to recognise
the lack of homogeneity within the disability and religious belief strands.
Formal investigations
It was argued that the power of holding formal investigations remained important but needed to
go wider eg to examine institutional religious discrimination. It was also questioned whether it
was necessary to have a standing resource for this work or whether it should be contracted out to
people with the appropriate skills and expertise as necessary.
10
New powers/functions
Some called for the body to have a range of new powers/functions.
Mediation
One interviewee pointed out that many equality issues are new for the employment
community – the benefit of the mediation process is that it helps parties see the other
person’s perspective. Strong support for this function was expressed by a stakeholder
commenting on the employers’ perspective – on the grounds that it might hold the key to
resolving the tension between promotion and enforcement and the fear of reputation loss
raised by a body with the latter powers. Mediation would be the optimum means of case
resolution, although the need for strategic test cases would still of course remain. The
new body should either undertake the responsibility for mediation itself or through well
defined partnerships eg with ACAS. If the latter it would need to ensure that partners had
sufficient knowledge/understanding of equality issues. This could be done by means of
Service Level Agreements and monitoring.
Complaints adjudication
It was suggested that it would be worth examining whether the body should as in some other
jurisdictions have a complaints resolution arm with the power to make adjudications, award
damages and set precedent, diverting cases away from courts/tribunals. It was argued on the
other hand however that experience abroad showed that where equality commissions sought to
provide access to justice directly, resources and strategic priorities were disproportionately
skewed. The bodies thus ended up reacting to the issues that individuals happened to raise
rather than focussing on strategic change management.
Public Inquiries
Support was also expressed for the power to hold public inquiries. It was argued that this was
more in keeping with the strategic goal of culture change than the more legalistic tool of formal
investigations. It was more likely to focus on a theme/topic than a particular organisation. The
end result would be practical recommendations rather than enforcement. Its more open process
was capable of building up public interest/support and political momentum. As a result practical
action backed up by resources was more likely (cf the Australian inquiry into stolen children).
There should be no compulsion to appear but hopefully the body would acquire a status that
would make co-operation with its inquiries desirable.
It was argued on the other hand that such a power would be detrimental to rather than supportive
of the goal of culture change. The body if aiming to be a change agent would need to accept that
it could not be ‘all things to all people’. A public inquiry power could be alienating and send out
the wrong message of a ‘stick’ rather than ‘carrot’ approach.
Thus even where strategic priorities are shared (ie commitment to culture change) views can
differ as to the corporate values and approach necessary to achieve it.
11
Other
Support was also expressed for the following new powers/activities:



Take representative actions.
Role in relation to international obligations. (eg ICCPR, CERD, CEDAW).
o Not useful if the body’s remit focussed mainly on individuals as they are not
justiciable.
o But if the remit goes beyond the individual this would be a useful power as it
gives the body a broader mandate to address matters of public concern.
Advice on legislation.
o This is of key importance. But it needs particular staff skills and is resource
intensive. Perhaps sub-contract this work out to skilled people as needed?
Any new powers at all?
A general caveat was raised by one interviewee regarding arguing for new powers. The priority
should be the harmonisation of existing powers in relation to equality, not lobbying for new ones.
Calling for new powers - with the possible exception of mediation - was politically unrealistic.
None were worth ‘going to the wall for’ and to focus on these would be a misdirection of energy
given the amount of work lying ahead.
Structure
Resources
All were agreed that this would be a key determinant of the success levels of the new
body. It would be disastrous if resources were set at a level which prevented the body
carrying out the considerable range of its responsibilities adequately or which meant that
the various strands were at loggerheads instead of engaged in the common purpose of
building the new organisation. It would be vital for the system of allocating resources to
be as fair and transparent as possible and for the reasons for decisions to be well
communicated within and outside the organisation.
For some a strand based resource reporting requirement (as in Northern Ireland) would
hinder a unified approach and be difficult to work in practice. Having to cope with
competing priorities was commonplace in both business and Government. Others
thought it would be helpful in providing reassurance and ensuring high profile issues did
not dominate. This might be for a time-limited period eg the first 5 years. Another
suggestion was for there to be an annual fundamental review spotlighting a different topic
to ensure priority of consideration across issues.
Some argued for harmonisation upwards of the currently unequal resources of the legacy
organisations and for sufficient funds to be made available to build capacity in the new
strands. The latter’s work otherwise would inevitably remain at a low profile. Some
scepticism was expressed however as to the extent to which the Government would be
prepared to provide new resources given the perceived potential for efficiency savings
and its aversion to being seen to create a super-quango. In this case difficult decisions
could not be avoided.
12
One argument made was that resource allocation should not be based on strands or on the
level of resources previously attached to the legacy organisations but rather determined
by a strategic and outcome based approach. The resource decision should be based on
and preceded by identification of the body’s overall success measures; an analysis of
where most progress remained to be made; what was needed to achieve that progress; and
where resources would have most impact.
Generic v specific structure
Some argued that resource levels would depend to an extent on the balance struck between core
and specific functions and the extent of the efficiency gains thus provided. For some, clear
guarantees on strand specific structures were necessary to gain the confidence and backing of
the ‘client group’ and to ensure an appropriate level of attention was assured to that strand.
Specialisation was necessary to take account of different characteristics and needs eg in relation
to monitoring. Specialist knowledge was to a large extent derived from being in touch with the
affected constituency. It was needed to feed into the work of generic functions such as advice,
HR, casework, and legal departments. A strand-specific rather than generic policy/practice
development structure was however essential with separate departments needed here. A
generic policy department with individual specialist workers within it would be too fragile.
Others agreed that specialist/technical expertise was crucial – particularly in policy work - and
that the strands would need something within the organisational structure with which they could
identify/relate if the new body were to gain acceptance. They argued however that this should be
within a generic organisational structure.
Some argued the structure should be defined on audiences and desired outcomes, not strands or
internal processes. Specialist structures would create silos and would not support work around
multiple discrimination. A strand-based approach would not be capable of encompassing the
multiple identities contained within each strand. The overall aim of the body was mainstreaming
which involved the same processes across all strands to enable institutions to performance
manage for equality outcomes. However the approach should be one of ‘mainstreaming plus’.
This meant having a reservoir of specialist expertise to call on, the ‘Heineken factor’ for each
issue, but without creating or reinforcing silos. There could be a core job description around
mainstreaming but with each staff member having a thematic lead, whether on a particular
equality issue or on a particular target audience.
It was argued that before making decisions on this better evidence was needed. We need now to
look closely at the work currently carried out by the legacy organisations to help determine what
is generic and what genuinely unique to specific strands. It was also argued that it was important
not to forget non-strand based issues such as the importance of having a North/South balance
given eg the regional distribution of health problems and the different experience of minority
communities in different regions.
It was suggested by one interviewee that a project-based approach would avert many of the
generic v specific difficulties. An inflexible bureaucracy should be avoided. Standing staff should
be employed for core central functions only. These should be generic with staff highly paid,
skilled and professional. Non-core functions should be contracted out. Decisions on strategic
priorities would determine where resources were allocated and on what specific projects enabling
resources to be shifted flexibly according to priority need. Efficiency gains would be made where
particular projects were able to cover issues relating to more than one strand. Particular projects
should be contracted out to those with specialist knowledge, thus providing the possibility of
engaging affected communities directly into the Commission’s work. It would also make it easier
to report how much was spent on each strand.
13
It was further suggested that some concerns might be allayed if the body were to have a role in
sustaining/building capacity in certain bodies in the old or new strands rather than merely
subsuming them.
Concerns were raised at the proportion of staff that would be disabled in comparison to the high
levels currently at the DRC. The suggestion was made in relation to this that the body should act
as an employer as if already bound by a public duty in relation to disability.
Governance
A separate Commissioner for each strand was suggested. Most however favoured generic
Commissioners – backed up by specialist advisers - who were not badged as representing a
particular issue. They should have expertise and the ability to take the lead on a particular issue;
but also the capacity to understand the whole picture. One suggested option was to have Board
members ‘champion’, but not represent, particular interests.
Others however emphasised the importance of particular constituencies being able to see
themselves and be involved in the decision-making structure. Not only expertise but also issues
around representation and participation were vital. Even if generic each individual Commissioner
would have a personal identity. They would inevitably be scrutinised according to their personal
experience creating potential problems regarding a perception of skewed/lack of representation
and a consequent undermining of trust in the body. Some minima regarding
criteria/representation might need to be built into the legislation. Transparency would be key. If
it were not possible to have all constituencies directly represented it would be vital for the
appointments process to be fair, transparent and communicated effectively to outsiders.
A new structure might need to be created beneath the ‘Board’ that could be responsible for
interfacing with constituencies/stakeholders. Some also emphasised the need for a wide mix of
people within the governance structure capable of understanding the full range of
audiences/sectors the body would work with and in. There were currently some gaps in sectors
eg rural affairs. It would be important to have key stakeholders such as employers, trade unions
and NGOs involved in governing the body and to build up the mechanisms and trust needed for
effective social partnership/dialogue. The group discussion on this paper agreed that the need
for strategic flexibility and to decide on competing priorities made transparency and the
involvement of stakeholders in strategic decision-making particularly important if mutual trust
were not to be endangered.
Some interviewees questioned the efficacy of the decision making process in the legacy
organisations. The view was expressed that the current structure is top-heavy and committee
driven with too many decisions coming to the top table. A Cabinet style structure with fewer
Commissioners but working full-time Commissioners might be preferable. Another suggestion
was for a fulltime chair and much more involved deputy working alongside the senior
management team, backed up by a ‘Board’ of part-timers concentrating on strategic issues.
Having part-time Commissioners meant outsiders could bring in their external networks and
knowledge.
Consultation
It was suggested that it was also important to make the Commissioners more ‘in touch’.
Commissioners could be required to have regular meetings with representative groups eg a
standing advisory council representing all key stakeholders. It was suggested that such a council
should have distinctive strand-based divisions or indeed for there to be a statutory advisory group
for each strand.
14
Some however disliked the idea of a standing consultative requirement at all finding it inflexible
and ineffective. It risked raising unrealistic expectations. They preferred instead that not only
consultation but also direct participation be mainstreamed into the body’s methods of working (eg
as highlighted above involving communities in specific projects or even contracting work out to
community groups).
It was also argued that while consultation with all stakeholders was important the body should not
see itself as in the lead for consulting potentially discriminated against individuals/groups - that
should remain the job of NGOS. The body should highlight any gaps in the representation of
individuals/groups and promote their being plugged rather than plugging them itself.
Geography
Location
Virtually all agreed on the importance of the central office being in London given its status as the
centre of political power. It was also pointed out that the strong concentration of minority ethnic
and certain religious groups in London meant that having eg Manchester as a base would make
little sense to those communities.
It was also suggested however that the very idea of a central/head office was misplaced. A
horizontal not vertical structure was needed with functions placed in a variety of locations, one
obvious choice being Manchester given the availability of staff/buildings there. While policy
people needed to be in London there was no reason why eg corporate services needed to be
based there.
It was argued on the other hand that a head office was vital to give strong strategic direction.
Service deliverers – eg those giving advice/guidance – did need to be in a variety of locations.
The services they were providing should however be determined by the head office.
The experience of a private sector merger discussed in detail later in the paper was that location
was an extremely emotive and difficult issue, with staff often extremely unwilling to move.
However the company found that creative thinking helped mitigate some of these problems - with
an increase in eg hot-desking, working at home and client-based working.
Regional structures
Some interviewees emphasised the importance of the regional dimension of diversity and
disadvantage eg in relation to race, religion and health. Some called for the body to have
regional structures based on RDAs/Regional Assemblies (where established) and to establish
links with the Government Offices of the Regions. It was also argued however that it would be
important not to duplicate existing structures eg around Neighbourhood Renewal. Regional
structures should be put in place to add value to the work rather than for the sake of it. There
were regional structures in place within the legacy organisations that could be developed.
It was pointed out that if it continued to be the case that only one strand, race, had a local
structure, a hierarchy would automatically be established. It was questioned whether the RECs in
their current form would be a suitable basis on which to create local equality councils and that
restructuring would be needed so to do. As set out earlier in the paper some interviewees also
suggested the RECs might become the basis of a network of local advice centres or of a
completely separate community relations body.
15
Devolution
Many interviewees stressed the advantages of devolution – the experience so far had been that
smaller nations were more ready and able to take risks and to push forward change. There
would be distinct advantages for the body of having strong offices in the devolved
administrations.
Most - but not all - preferred these offices to be semi rather than completely autonomous with
national minimum standards, given that equality and human rights are reserved areas. It was
recognised however that many of the key results domains such as health, education and criminal
justice are devolved. They should be allowed to work towards different outcomes, although within
a common overarching strategy.
It was pointed out that full devolution would not be advantageous for some groups eg Moslems
who constitute a tiny minority within Scotland. It was recognised that any human rights remit
would not be able to run in Scotland given the forthcoming establishment of the HRC there.
Relationship to Government
It was suggested that the body might take money direct from the Consolidated Fund and be
directly accountable to Parliament through the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Most interviewees however preferred the body to be an NDPB sponsored by a Government
Department, but working independently of it rather than with an overly hands on approach from
Whitehall. There was no clear candidate however for sponsor Dept. Central Depts such as
Cabinet Office/ODPM carried too little weight. LCD, the department responsible for human rights,
was seen as promoting an overly legalistic message. DTI was considered too closely linked to
one particular stakeholder, employers; this would also exacerbate the problem of the equality
agenda being identified too narrowly as applicable to employment rather than also to public
services.
One interviewee suggested it would be helpful for the Forum to commission an options paper as
to which Department would be the appropriate sponsor for the new body.
Planning for change
Timing
One of the main areas of disagreement among interviewees was the stance the Forum should
take on the optimal timing for the body’s establishment, once the necessary enabling legislation
had gone through Parliament.
Interviewees from the new strands were eager to ‘get on with it’ and for the body to be created as
soon as possible, even if this meant it commencing work before age came on-stream. It was
pointed out that the new body could do vital preparatory work for this and that in any case
equality law is constantly evolving. 2006 will thus not present a final end point so waiting for that
date is unnecessary. A longer time scale would decrease momentum. It was pointed out that
‘getting on with it’ would also avert the need for transitional arrangements. The alternative could
mean considerable delay - as once set up these transitional arrangements would need to be
given time to work and for the new strands to become established.
Interviewees from the bodies forming the three ‘legacy’ organisations of the new body – the
existing equality Commissions – did not consider that they were experiencing planning blight and
16
were content to wait until the legislation on age comes on-stream. They are keen to see through
their existing work programmes, for example:
o
o
the CRE wishes to ensure successful implementation and evaluate the impact of the
RRAA;
the DRC wishes to finalise its own goals and ensure completion of the major agenda
in relation to disability eg on education, buildings and transport.
It was also argued that to create the body before all the new strands had come on-stream would
create expectations that could not be met and would in addition limit the possibility of creating a
body that was completely new. The suggestion was made that the new body could be
established on an incremental basis without one or more of the legacy organisations. It was
argued however that this would send out a bad message about the temporarily excluded
strand(s)’s place within the equality/diversity agenda as a whole, and detrimentally affect its/their
ability to contribute to the shaping of the new body. Little support for the incremental approach
was found at the group discussion, with the argument made that it would potentially damage the
interests of the social group whose representative body was temporarily excluded.
It was argued by some interviewees that a longer implementation period would create greater
flexibility regarding staffing and the ability to plan carefully on this and other mattes. Interviewees
from both new and legacy strands agreed on the importance of having ‘new blood’ in the new
organisation at all levels. This was necessary for the body to have the appropriate skills and
expertise and to ensure that the process did not take on the feel of an ‘acquisition’ by the legacy
organisations. In this respect it was also important to have capacity building in the new strands.
A stakeholder commenting on the employers’ perspective observed that in order to avert the feel
of an acquisition the legacy organisations needed to be willing to give up some of their power
base – for example it would send out a message of acquisition of one of the leaders of the legacy
organisations were to be appointed as leader of the new body. It was also argued that potential
new Board members should be identified as early as possible.
The group discussion agreed that whatever its length, the implementation period should be used
productively to plan the new body and make it work effectively (eg establish procedures such as
the criteria for funding cases and how the body would work with stakeholders). It was also
emphasised during the discussion that good external communications were vital to avoid
uncertainty and the raising of expectations (eg among NGOs) that could not be met. More public
debate and interest in this issue was needed. It was also emphasised that, if needed, any interim
arrangements would be wholly inadequate and considered to be a begrudging granting of rights
unless they had a clear goal and were evidently integrated into, and advancing, the new body’s
overall establishment plan.
Trust and vision building
Before reaching firm views on the optimal timing and planning process, it is important to
understand what is at stake. To inform this paper the head of the Integration Team from a private
sector company was interviewed (who had been responsible for creating a new company out of
three legacy companies). She emphasised the importance of investing in integration and listed
the three main lessons learnt from her company’s experience as being:
a) Vital to build a new and clear vision for the organisation being established and to set up a
process to achieve buy-in to that vision. The vision is needed from the very outset of the
change process so that people know from the beginning what they are working towards
and why the hassle is worthwhile.
b) Key to identify the benefits and sell them. And sell them to yourselves too – you need to
believe in this or you won’t be able to sell it to others. Lots of awaydays for leaders etc
17
needed – they need to own this. Start building the blocks needed to transform them into
a true team.
c) Staff won’t be able to focus on anything till the hygiene factors are sorted out so do this
as quickly as possible. Staff will want clear answers re issues like location, what the job
will be, who’ll they be working for, impact on relative pay and conditions and grade
structures etc. These were also the issues that preoccupied staff when the Northern
Ireland Equality Commission was established. (In this company’s case it took a year to
harmonise grade structures – an emotive and complex area – and two years after the
merger pay parity has yet to be achieved causing ill feeling at all levels of the
organisation.) An early and clear plan is needed so that if you don’t yet know the answer
you can say when you will. And you need to deliver on that plan.
Item c) is evidently a process that must wait till decisions are made further down the line. It was
clear from the interviews however that a great deal of work lies ahead on a) and b) and that this
work can and should begin, even if on a very gradual basis. Mutual trust and sense of a shared
vision are not created overnight. Practical suggestions from interviewees for what this should
mean included:
o
o
o
o
create opportunities for regular cross-strand working
and for mutual learning from each other’s skills and experience - with those from legacy
organisations needing to be as open to learning from the new strands as vice versa
bring in an external consultant to facilitate the process so that no one strand appears to
be in charge – particularly important given the inequalities of resources and experience
within the various strands (and thus the danger of the process feeling like an acquisition).
hold facilitated awaydays to ensure regular dialogue occurs even if only ‘dialogue for the
sake of it’ instead of part of a decision-making process.
Conclusion
This paper has revealed that beneath the apparent consensus among the six strands on highlevel vision exist important differences of emphasis in terms of strategic approach, and of the
envisioned remit, values and style of the proposed new body. These in turn affect views on the
body’s functions, the skills and experience needed in its governance and staff, and its
organisational structure. The differences revealed reflect the varying backgrounds and
preoccupations being brought to the table by the six strands. They evidence therefore the rich
opportunity for mutual learning that the creation of a single equality body presents.
It is vital however that these differences are brought to the surface and explored rather than
brushed under the carpet. Otherwise it will not be possible to reach the degree of coherence and
unity needed successfully to shape the new organisation and to make concrete and timely plans
about matters such as structure, governance and staffing.
A key area of agreement at the group discussion on this paper was on the need to respond to the
differing short-medium-long term needs of the various strands; to build partnerships with diverse
stakeholders; and to make decisions about strategic priorities within limited resources. It was
recognised that these had important implications for organisational values and style. Strategic
and structural flexibility would be needed within a clear overarching vision. Adaptability, cooperation, mutual trust, transparency, sophistication and a strongly corporate approach would be
key values.
The extent to which it is possible to create an organisation based on these values will be strongly
affected by the manner in which the remaining differences among and within the strands are
resolved; and the time that it takes so to do. The timing of these discussions needs also to take
into account a further key task of the implementation period, namely external
18
consultation/communication. The group discussion on this paper agreed that the need for
strategic flexibility and to decide on competing priorities made transparency and the involvement
of stakeholders vitally important. Without these the mutual trust needed to make this work in
practice could be endangered. The implementation period therefore needs to be used
productively to build trust, partnership and vision building not only between the six strands but
also between the new body and its stakeholders. It is to be hoped that this paper will contribute
to developing this process that is essential to the successful planning, management and delivery
of this major change.
19