Since 2001 we have seen massive changes in the way in which society understands and regulates equality. The legal framework has been through significant change culminating in the 2010 Equality Act both in terms of duties and in terms of the scope of legislation. What is our experience of the legislation and the current changes? What effect can the legal framework have on securing continued change? What has been the experience of managerialist approaches to equality? Who will drive change in the future and how will it be driven – through professionals and managers or through activists and communities?
We are planning a series of interdisciplinary seminars through 2011 to explore these issues. The first seminar will be in July at a venue to be announced in London and the programme will continue in October and December.
We are keen to receive papers or contributions for this series and you are invited to submit, by e-mail, a short proposal (abstract) of no more than 300 words to

Stuart Speeden  speedens@edgehill.ac.uk
Dr Karen Leeming   leemingk@edgehill.ac.uk

Deadline for call for papers: 31 January 2011

Please contact us if you wish to discuss a proposal or the seminar series.

Stuart Speeden

Director Centre for Local Policy Studies

The meeting will have two main agenda items:

Review the future of equality and equality research in a period of austerity.

Clearly, the change of government and the appointment of Theresa May to the Home Office with responsibility for Equalities sets a new context within which equality and diversity policy will be developing. This meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss the changes and the role that research could and should play in this changing context. The aim of the discussion would be to map out a research agenda for wider discussion through the network.Plan the development of the network and its role in supporting research.

There are a number of specific proposals to discuss here to make the network a more active force in the development of research activity and in promoting debate. Current proposals include the development of a seminar series, the development of an international conference and the development of the website as a more interactive tool for networking and discussion.

The timing of the network meeting coincides with the CLPS Summer School, which will be starting with the ‘Big Debate’ on equality, taking place at the same location later that day. There is an interesting line-up of participants and you may want to join the debate on the future of equality later that day. We are offering lunch and free places to all members of the Network.

Please contact Stuart Speeden or Karen Leeming to attend the network meeting and/or book your place at the debate.

You may also be interested in the Summer School (details at www. http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clps/events/summerschool/) which is a great opportunity to participate in a wide range of workshops and discussions with an excellent range of contributors looking at equality policy and practice.

I am planning to edit a themed edition of the International Journal of Public Sector Management focusing on ‘Delivering equality through public sector management’. I am inviting possible contributions to the journal of 4-6,000 words in length. If you have a proposal that you would like to discuss or a short synopsis please contact Stuart Speeden speedens@edgehill.ac.uk

http://www.ntu.ac.uk/nbs/news_events/pac_2010/index.html

Friday 19th March 2010
1230 lunch followed by seminar 1300 -1500

Room W10 Wilson Building
Edge Hill University

(If you would like to reserve a place, please email Angie Daly on dalya [at] edgehill.ac.uk)

The public engagement remit of universities has been described by HEFCE/RCUK as the “ambition for a different, more inclusive relationship between the academic and non-academic worlds” (www.publicengagement.ac.uk). Dimensions of public engagement include: public access to knowledge & facilities; widening participation; student and staff engagement; encouraging economic regeneration and enterprise and institutional relationship and partnership building. Activities involve staff and students at all levels of universities and the publics/communities with whom they engage (Auditing, Evaluating and Benchmarking Public Engagement: NCCPE Briefing Paper No.1).

Knowledge exchange can be viewed a central element of public engagement which at Edge Hill University is defined broadly and “recognises various forms of collaboration and benefit, extending well beyond narrow notions of income generation” (DRKT Knowledge Transfer Development Fund). Activities here include wider benefits of applied of knowledge and skills; critical analysis of policy and practice; commercial income generation through research, knowledge transfer and training services and consultancy. Following on from the Centre for Local Policy Studies Research Exchange Seminar on ‘Concepts of Knowledge Exchange’, we would like to continue the discussion about what knowledge exchange and public engagement means for us at Edge Hill.

We are pleased to welcome

• Danny Burns SOLAR Research Centre, The University of West of England, Bristol  (http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/our-research/action-research )and
• Heather Squires National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement                                                     www.publicengagement.ac.uk )

who will share with us experiences of researching the interface between universities and publics through a national and university-wide systemic action research project.

Come and join us to explore:

• Perceptions of public engagement and the role of universities?
• Knowledge exchange/public engagement activities at Edge Hill?
• What are the challenges and opportunities?

If you would like to reserve a place, please email Angie Daly on dalya [at] edgehill.ac.uk .

Please include any dietary requirements, as lunch is included.

Programme

Chair               Stuart Speeden, Centre for Local Policy Studies

1230    Lunch

1300    Introduction: Thinking about knowledge exchange and public engagement

1310    Motivations for public engagement: Whose Interests? Heather Squires

1330    Researching public engagement cultures. Danny Burns

1400    The ‘engaged university’? Where are we now?

1440    Review: What are the opportunities and challenges?

1500    Close

Head of Centre

Supporting Document – Comparing the specific equality duties

Response Proforma Eq Bill

Consultation on the Equality Bill

Government Equality Office

I am writing in response to the Government’s consultation on the Equality Bill following our discussions within the Centre. The response is based on our extensive experience working with the public and voluntary sector on the implementation of the duties and in developing national equality standards.

The Centre for Local Policy Studies

The Centre for Local Policy Studies is a university-based research centre focusing on equality, community engagement, the public sector and associated issues with extensive experience of working to promote equality and manage equality in the public sector and voluntary sector. Our work in developing the Equality Standard for Local Government (England), the Equality Improvement Framework for Wales and in managing the assessments against the Standard through the Equality Mark have provided extensive experience and knowledge of the way in which the current legislative framework operates in practice. Alongside this, we have worked widely with public bodies and voluntary sector organisations in the management of equality and diversity for more than 15 years. Our extensive experience of working in the field has informed our submission. We are also, liaising with other relevant agencies with a direct interest in these matters.

The documentation provided by CLPS

In addition to providing a completed Response Pro Forma as requested, we have also provided a detailed supporting submission. The detailed supporting submission provides:

• proposals for rationalised specific duties with additional comments and rationale (see table A of the supporting submission);
• a comparative analysis of the existing specific duty requirements (see tables B and C of the supporting submission).

The analysis and proposals have been provided in support of the consultation because we have found that the consultation document itself did not address a number of issues that we felt to be important in the debate about Specific Duties. Below we have set out a summary of the key issues that we feel should be addressed as an introduction to our response through the consultation document and in the analysis and proposals contained in the supplementary submission.

• Equality schemes: We wish to reject the proposals to remove existing specific duties with respect to Equality Schemes.
  • The statutory requirement to produce Equality Schemes, currently Race, Disability and Gender Equality Schemes should not be removed instead these duties should be replaced by the duty to produce an integrated Equality Scheme and a number of associated requirements (see table A of the CLPS response).
• Training: We are concerned that there has been a misreading of the specific race duties in relation to training and consequently the proposed recommended deletion of a specific equality duty is misguided.
  • Para 4.26 of the consultation document states that the Race Equality Duty ‘requires public authorities to train all staff in race equality awareness’.
  • Regulation 2.2 of the specific race duties[1] states that a public body’s Race Equality Scheme shall state … arrangements for  (v) training staff in connection with the duties imposed by section 71 (1) of the Race Relations Act and this order.’ There is no requirement for blanket training of the staff of a public body or for blanket race awareness training. The requirement is for a public body to set out its arrangements in relation to training, in the RES, in furtherance of the general and specific duties.
  • We concur with other agencies, that appropriate training – in relation to all equality strands – is central to tackling discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity. The importance of such training is addressed in a number of statutory codes of practice on the promotion of equality of opportunity, and it would be a retrograde step, to not develop an appropriate specific duty on training (see table A of the CLPS submission).
  • Equality objective setting: We are concerned that the approach to equality objectives setting is problematic in the extreme. Statements made in paragraphs 5.13[2] and paragraph 5.14[3] present a number of problems.
    • Although described as a light touch, the likely outcome is that those groups that have the loudest voices are likely to get their issues on the agenda whilst others will be even more invisible.
    • The fact that there will be no requirement to set equality objectives and therefore take action in relation to an equality group, strand or characteristic is likely to make it more difficult to challenge the inactions of a public body because first one is going to have to assert/prove that the public body had to address equality characteristics at all in whatever was done.
    • The current specific duties start from the premise that a public body must consider the issues and show how it did so.
    • Equality impact assessments: The proposals[4] on equality impact assessments are also problematic.
      • Whilst it is true that separate guidance on equality impact assessments – produced by the then equality commissions (CRE, DRC and EOC) – did present problems, and the CRE’s non-statutory guidance was particularly mechanistic, the solution in the consultation paper runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
      • Significant work has been undertaken to bring together frameworks for an integrated approach to equality impact assessments, and it should be possible to build on the work undertaken by a number of government departments, local authorities and others to build on the strengths of the existing framework whilst addressing key weaknesses.
      • When to undertake and equality impact assessment: The proposals on when/how to undertake an equality impact assessment[5] are problematic.
        • If an equality impact assessment is not undertaken before a new policy or practice is developed, it is likely to be impossible to identify potential adverse impact and take appropriate steps to avoid or mitigate the effect of any adverse impact.
        • The proposals contained in 5.24 – 5.27 are vague. The proposals would make it almost impossible to seek legal redress or challenge the absence of an effective equality impact assessment process because the equality impact assessment process – how, what process and when equality impact assessments have to be undertaken – is at the discretion of the public sector body.
        • The proposals ignore the fact that effective, transparent and consistent processes are central to achieving desired outcomes and/or enabling aggrieved parties to challenge perceived inadequacies.
        • The suggestion that many public bodies may only wish ‘to continue to use the equality impact assessment guidance issued by the EHRC’[6] leaves one with the impression that any guidance issued by the EHRC will not be in the statutory code of practice[7]…

We would be happy to discuss these or any of the points raised within our submission.

Yours sincerely

Director, Centre for Local Policy Studies

[2] Based on the evidence, some public bodies may not identify a need to address a particular characteristic, and to artificially require an objective each might distract public bodies from the serious business of addressing those areas of real need. Furthermore, public bodies are in a better position than central government to assess which aspects are of greatest relevance to promoting equality in their particular business and/or locality, and to set objectives accordingly.’ [GEO Consultation para 5.13]

[3] ‘Of course, when setting their equality objectives, public bodies will need to explain, with reference to the evidence, how they have had due regard to all the requirements of the general equality duty; but that will not preclude a focus on a particular characteristic which arises naturally from such an overview. Large public organisations – or for example government departments, local authorities and police authorities – may well set objectives for each characteristic as a matter of good practice: their resources and scope of activity may suggest that that would be appropriate. But a primary school, for example, may wish to focus at the first instance on a particular characteristic or characteristics as determined by the evidence. Statutory guidance from the EHRC will help public bodies decide what is appropriate for them.’ [GEO Consultation para. 5.14]

[4] ‘We propose is that public bodies should demonstrate how they’ve taken into account evidence of the impact on equality in the design of key policy and service delivery initiatives, and what differences this has made.’ [GEO Consultation preamble to para. 5.24

[5] We envisage that public bodies may take into account evidence of the impact on equality at a number of different stages: for example, when proposing or consulting on a policy or initiative; when putting forward proposals for legislation in their end of year reports; or indeed when requested by members of the public.’ [GEO Consultation preamble to para. 5.25]

[6] GEO Consultation para. 5.27.

[7] Public bodies are effectively obliged to consider the contents of statutory code of practice as any relevant matters. Although there is no obligation for the court to follow the guidance in the statutory code, it (the court) must consider that guidance. Though non-statutory guidance is by definition non-statutory it should not be an unreasonable expectation that a public sector body – especially one concerned about complying with its duties to promote equality of opportunity – would at the least consider non-statutory guidance issued by the EHRC on relevant matters. Furthermore, it would not be unreasonable to expect that since such a non-statutory guidance is produced to assist public bodies to fulfil their legal duties that the public body would be able to justify and defend its decision to not take account of non-statutory guidance issued by the EHRC, especially given the EHRC’s statutory remit.

A substantive part of the Equality and Diversity Research Network Meeting on the 3^rd of July focused on the new Equality Bill and the Policy Proposals for specific duties, as any responses to it have to be submitted by the 30^th of September 2009.  There was an intense debate by the members who attended the meeting on the specific and general duties outlined by the Policy proposal  and areas that are being omitted, overlooked, dropped or excluded such as the equalities provisions not being applicable to those under 18.  Chapters four and five were highlighted as being of particular interest.

There was also a worry that local authorities could read the Bill in such a way that instead of mainstreaming equality of opportunity within all their structures, they would focus on what they can actually demonstrate they have achieved.  In essence, fostering a tick box compliance culture that has little real benefit.  It was felt that this would be especially prevalent in rural areas where mainstreaming could be dismissed as unworkable in a number of situations.

Several members of the group proposed that they collaborate on producing a brief on the Equality Bill and the , links to appropriate documentation and a draft response.  These will be disseminated to the network members for comment and the finalised response will be submitted in due course on behalf of the network.  If you would like to be formally identified as a member of the network in this response please e-mail Karen Leeming who will be collating the list.  You may also want to consider submitting a personal response to the Equality Bill.  The points raised and the proposed outcomes from the rest of the meeting will be available shortly.

Please contribute to the debate on this blog..

Our aims for the Network are: to generate new opportunities for collaborative research; to stimulate debate between academics and practitioners; and promote new opportunities for published output.

How will it work?

We are establishing a database and contact list of network members. This will be developed over the next year into a basic platform for the exchange of ideas and information that this blog will be a part of.

To promote the development of interdisciplinary research the next event we are holding will be on the 3rd July 2009 and is free for network members.  The event details and agenda can be found on this blog under ‘Next Network Event’.

Send your details

If you are interested in participating in the network please drop an e-mail to Dr Karen Leeming at leemingk [at] edgehill.ac.uk. We will then send out a short pro-forma to put your details on the database.

Stuart Speeden, Director, Centre for Local Policy Studies, Edge Hill University.