STAKEHOLDER ORGANISATION: Discrimination Law Association DATE: 9 March 2009 Discussion Questions A. What are your views on the Government legislating to ensure that addressing socioeconomic disadvantage becomes a core consideration of key public bodies in setting priorities/strategy? We recognise that poverty may be both a cause and a consequence of discrimination. In principle, therefore, we welcome a discussion about the issues raised in the proposal. Further, we are aware that disadvantage based on opportunity can be related to circumstances such as birth, locality, class and community. While nowhere in the consultation paper is there an explicit proposal to incorporate this duty in the forthcoming Equality Bill, the urgency of the consultation suggests that this is what the Government Equalities Office has in mind. We are concerned that the introduction of the very wide concept of "socioeconomic disadvantage" into equality legislation without careful analysis and consideration may allow public authorities to use "socioeconomic" factors to divert their focus from the disadvantages that are primarily linked to other factors such as race, gender and disability. From a perspective of tackling discrimination on all of the current statutory grounds, there is also a risk that this new duty could be divisive within communities based on, for example, class divisions within a particular ethnic community. The existing public sector equality duties are still very much in their infancy. We remain concerned that the existing duties are still not being sufficiently considered by public bodies and that policies and practices continue to ignore obligations to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality on grounds of race, disability and gender. That this is so is confirmed by the increasing number of cases exposing breach by public bodies of their general equality duties.. Further, given the lack of definition in the consultation paper of the socioeconomic factors which public bodies could be expected to consider, we are concerned that there may be no consistent and objective criteria to assess impact or to measure performance or lack of performance. This contrasts with more tangible obligations under the current equality duties to "eliminate" unlawful discrimination and to "promote" equality of opportunity and good relations. The proposal as currently drafted appears to shy away from giving individuals or groups the ability to challenge the actions of a public authority if the authority fails to comply with the duty. It offers many reasons which a public authority could rely upon in order to justify NOT complying. It appears to want to impose this duty as an optional consideration or “nice to have” at a strategic level only, but very limited means for enforcement and monitoring are suggested. From a legal perspective, we query the value of introducing a statutory “duty” which has no real teeth. It indicates that, as stated above, this is an aspirational proposal but one which the Government itself recognises would be very difficult to implement as an enforceable legal duty across public authorities. We also raise concerns as to how public authorities to whom this duty will apply will be in a position to comply with the duty without additional resources. Given that there is real concern as to whether public authorities will be able (or willing) to comply with the single equality duty once it comes into force, the introduction of this new duty will complicate the existing issues which are yet to be adequately addressed by public authorities. As we have indicated above, despite detailed codes of practice and guidance, there are numerous instances of public authorities found to have failed to comply in relation to race and disability, and there is little evidence that the gender duty is being fulfilled. B. What inequalities do you think should be covered by the duty? DLA considers that this is a fundamental issue which requires clarification before any duty can be introduced. We would like to see evidence from experts in this field as to what inequalities are most commonly experienced as a result of socioeconomic status. We anticipate that a number of these inequalities will be based on various strands of discrimination - and this must also be expressly recognised. We consider that this evidence should be made available as part of a detailed consultation regarding this new proposed duty. C. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of giving bodies the flexibility to define the socioeconomic inequalities relating to their business area and how these should be identified, measured and monitored, rather than prescribing this in legislation? We are concerned about the proposed lack of prescription, given that the concepts of race, gender and disability equality are familiar concepts and there is still significant inaction on the part of public authorities in implementing the equality duties. In our view, tackling socioeconomic disadvantage should already be a fundamental role of Government and public authorities at every level. If Parliament should agree to make this a statutory duty on certain public authorities then detailed guidance and examples must be made available to these public authorities and guidance must set out the most appropriate methods of conducting research and risk assessments. O. How in your view would the new duty impact on implementation of other statutory duties? Please see our response above. R. What factors in your view should be taken into account in setting the date of commencement? Further detailed consultation and discussion is required before this duty can be implemented. It would be necessary to consider how the single equality duty is being implemented and then how any further duties can implemented alongside that duty.