Goodbye to the public sector equality duty?

26 August 2010 by

The government is moving away from the wide-ranging public sector equality duty which was due to come into force in April 2011.

The Equalities Office has announced a consultation on the public sector equality duty imposed by the Equality Act 2010. Reading the consultation document, it is clear that the government intends to delegate the equalities duty to the general public, rather than imposing top-down standards from Whitehall:

We do not intend to prescribe how public bodies go about their business, but we will ensure that we put in place the right framework which empowers citizens to scrutinise the data and evidence on how their public services perform.

The equality duty is already causing the new government trouble. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission said yesterday that they consider the general duty imposed by the  Equality Act 2010 to pay “due regard” to equalities considerations to extend to the Treasury in relation to the Spending Review. In the Commission’s view, this means the Treasury needs to have carried out a an impact assessment.

In light of the consultation, it would appear that the Big Society is now going to be taking on this work. The Equality Act 2010 was passed in the last days of the New Labour government. Its aim was to consolidate what until now has been a messy jigsaw of 116 pieces of legislation, and further harmonise UK law with the four key EU Equal Treatment Directives. The Act is due to start coming into force in October, but the timetable for implementation is currently under review. It is no secret that the Conservative Party were opposed to some of its provisions (see our previous post), including the provision forcing public authorities to take socio-economic factors into account when allocating their resources.

The proposals mark a significant shift away from those of the last government. On the face of it, the duty imposed by the Act is still wide. Section 1 of the Equality Act imposes a duty on public bodies to reduce socio-economic equalities. The Act provides that public bodies must

when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage

By section 149, public authorities must also, whenever exercising its functions, have “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and “foster good relations” between different groups.  The duty will affect a wide range of bodies, including councils, the police, health authorities and most government departments.

The devil is, however, in the detail. The specific means of implementing the duties are to come by regulations (Section 153). The previous government wanted (see its proposals here) to require authorities to develop and set out their equality objectives and then demonstrate how those objective had been taken into account in policy. This would also include the setting of “national equality priorities”.

The Coalition Government’s “new approach” will take into account “the Government’s clear aim of replacing top-down interventions from the centre with local democratic accountability driven by transparency and decentralisation” leaving public bodies “free from unnecessary red tape”.

What this will actually mean is that rather than having to publish specific equality objectives and adhere to national frameworks, public authorities will instead publish a range of equality data relating both to their workforces and to the services they provide. This will be in line with the principles set out by the new Public Sector Transparency Board, which has been set up to cajole public authorities to open up their data. This coincides with government’s commitment in its Program for Government to introduce a “Right to Data”.

So long, equality duty

So, the new government has effectively scrapped the public sector equality duty in the form intended by the drafters of the Equality Act, and replaced it with a fairly vague commitment to freedom of information. This is not necessarily a bad thing; it may well be that the relatively lithe NGO world is indeed better placed to use readily available equalities data to make the case for change. More data as to how government runs – particularly if it is regular and easy to understand – must ultimately increase accountability.

It is also probably a great relief to public authorities that they will not be saddled with another set of national priorities to consider when designing policy. In any event, the Human Rights Act provides that no public body can act in a way which disproportionately breaches human rights, and this includes a duty to prevent discrimination. So there is a redress available if policies are discriminatory.

Some will argue, however, that this represents a costs-cutting measure pure and simple, and that the equalities duty, as laudable and perhaps successful as it is would have been, was simply going to be too expensive. If equalities data does become more readily available, we should be able to find out whether the detractors are right as it will be possible to measure equalities results over time. But will the data be any use if there is no mechanism available to solve equalities issues when they arise?

Another interesting question is to what extent the public sector equalities duty applies in its general form as set out in the Act, without more specific regulations. If Section 1 does impose a wide-ranging duty, this could amount to the imposition of social and economic rights (see our post) – which were left out of the Human Rights Act – by the back door.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission are of the view that government departments are already under a duty to carry out equalities impact assessments, so it is unclear as to how much the new government can resile from these duties without repealing parts of the Act. These duties may arise from previous equality legislation in any event. The threatened Judicial Review of the Budget by the Fawcett Society, or action from the EHRC, may inspire the courts to provide an answer sooner rather than later.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS


2 comments


  1. moira says:

    You suggest – “If equalities data does become more readily available, we should be able to find out whether the detractors are right as it will be possible to measure equalities results over time.”

    That is a very big if.

    As the coordinator of a gender equality group I know we have spent the past three years repeatedly making the point that all published statistics should be available in a format that disaggregates by gender and age, at the very least.

    But this in itself doesn’t go far enough. The more ‘raw’ the data, the harder, the more time-consuming (of volunteer time) and more costly it is to assess it. Already community groups face constant capacity and capability hurdles.

    And the final nail in the coffin is that equality groups / the Big Society are external to the cyclical financial processes of public authorities. Public authority budget’s are proactively set far ahead. Once the proposed expenditure is published and a local group reacts the answer will always be – it’s too late to do anything this year, the money has all been allocated.

    The great beauty of the Gender Equality Duty was that it meant we could expect/instist that the equality be base-line effective not bolt-on ineffectual remedies.

  2. P Rogers says:

    That’s fine, as we have the gender equality duty. already in force.

    The religious were always going to mess the equality duty up anyway.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: