1. Maintaining the Business Case for
Equality: Reducing Risk and
Ensuring Compliance’
Anthony Robinson

2. Setting the scene and joining up the dots
My presentation will be covering context setting
• The dismantlement of individual rights
• The assault on equality and human rights
• Attacks on the PSED
• The justification for austerity and its impacts
• Why equality is better for everyone
Joining up the dots 2

3. The structure of & approach to discrimination
and human rights law
The three tracked approach and structure
• The rights of individuals to bring proceedings re
discrimination and infringement of human rights
• A credible independent enforcement agency with
the powers and resources to assist individuals to
challenge abuses of rights
• An independent & authoritative enforcement
agency with the powers and resources to
promote, regulate & protect discrimination and
human rights in its own name
Joining up the dots 3

4. Dismantlement of individual rights
• Taken the axe to Legal Aid - Contracting & competitive tendering of
Legal Aid – the Eddie Stobart model
• Putting up barriers to prevent access to the courts & tribunals
• Restricting the freedom of judges in the ET to make wider
recommendations
• Stripping out some of the rights in the Equality Act 2010
• Undermining the PSED
• Attacking the Human Rights Act
• Retrenching on employment rights
• Increasing to 2 years the qualifying period for statutory protection
• Confidential termination negotiations
• Capping compensation levels
• Limiting the scope of Health Safety law
• Neutering the EHRC – the guard dog with dentures
• The death of independent advice agencies
• Demonising foreigners
• Outsourcing the state as a way of evading the law & responsibility
Joining up the dots 4

5. Assaults on the Equality Act 2010
• Socio economic duty abandoned
• Dual discrimination provisions removed
• Power of Minister to require employers with 250 + employees to publish
information about gender pay gap not brought into effect
• Questionnaire procedure withdrawn
• Third party harassment not proceeded with
• Power of ET to make wider recommendations
• Re-introduction of 2 year qualifying period for unfair dismissal and statutory
redundancy
• Removing the right of employees to bring civil actions for breach of health &
safety regulations
• Introduction of “employee owner contracts” without employment rights
• Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board
• Deregulatory approach has led to a move to “Voluntary, business-driven
organisation based initiatives provide an insecure basis for a general improvement in
the position of women and indeed other groups who are disadvantage on the labour
market” (Prof Linda Dickens, Wainwright Trust Lecture 2012)
Joining up the dots 5

6. The dog that lost its bite- the sad tale of the EHRC
• Budget cuts 72% (£70m to £20m) and counting
• Staff cuts 72% (600 – 150 by 2014)
• End to grants programme
• Equalities Mediation Scheme terminated
• People with Reduced Mobility Complaints Scheme/Air
Travel Accessibility Scheme moved to CAA and “softened”
• Helpline privatised to Equality Advisory Support Service
• Repeal of s3 general duty on EHRC
• Closure of regional offices
• Leadership
• Status of National Human Rights Institution under threat
• Removal of good relations obligations on the EHRC
Joining up the dots 6

7. The Prime Minister’s speech to the CBI November
2012 Red Tape versus equality
“Take the Equality Act. It’s not a bad piece of legislation. But in
government we have taken the letter of this law and gone way beyond
it, with Equality Impact Assessments for every decision we make. Let
me be very clear. I care about making sure that government policy
never marginalises or discriminates.
I care about making sure we treat people equally. But let’s have the
courage to say it, caring about these things does not have to mean
churning out reams of bureaucratic nonsense.
We have smart people in Whitehall who consider equalities issues
while they’re making the policy. We don’t need all this extra tick-box
stuff. So I can tell you today we are calling time on Equality Impact
Assessments. You no longer have to do them if these issues have been
properly considered. That way policy-makers are free to use their
judgement and do the right thing to meet the equalities duty rather
than wasting their own time and taxpayers’ money.”
Joining up the dots 7

8. Where are we with the PSED?
Coalition attitude to PSED
• Red Tape Challenge
• The PSED review was announced by way of Written
Ministerial Statement in May 2012: “We committed
last year to assess the effectiveness of the PSED specific
duties. We have decided to bring forward that review
and extend it to include both the general and specific
duties to establish whether the Duty is operating as
intended.” (Written Ministerial Statement – Tuesday
15th May 2012)
• May 2012 Independent Steering Group appointed
under Rob Hayward OBE and reported September 2013
and government response published at the same time
Joining up the dots 8

9. Steering Group findings
• Too early to make a final judgement about the impact of
the PSED as it was only introduced in April 2011 and the
evidence on the costs and benefits is inconclusive
• The Steering Group found burdens associated with the
implementation of the PSED
• The PSED has not significantly increased costs in
comparison with previous duties
• Where equalities has been mainstreamed the costs may be
lower
• Many public bodies are embedding equality considerations
into procurement and commissioning processes but many
are adopting a formulaic ‘tick-box’ approach
• Found some evidence of excessive and unnecessary data
collection
Joining up the dots 9

10. Steering Group findings
• Some public bodies over publishing data
• Patchy data collection
• EIA’s are not a legal requirement but they are
widespread and formulaic and seen as protection
against risk of legal challenge
• When carried out well EIA’s can highlight
examples of good practice but poor EIA’s are
overly long and inaccessible tick box exercises
• In most cases those bodies that have
mainstreamed equality issues and moved away
from EIA’s appear to be less bureaucratic
Joining up the dots 10

11. Steering Group findings
• Costs may have been higher due to a lack of clear guidance
• Risk of legal challenge is a significant factor in determining
costs
• Many participants attributed general benefits of the PSED
but there was little evidence to support this
• The PSED is not operating as intended
On judicial reviews
• The PSED was just one of the grounds which suggests that
the JR would have arisen even if the PSED was not raised
• Central and local government particularly sensitized to the
legal risks and the impacts can be significant
• Even when a decision is overturned it is not uncommon for
the initial decision to be ‘maintained’
Joining up the dots 11

12. Steering Group recommendations
• Full evaluation of the PSED
• Government to consider whether there are quicker and
more cost effective ways of reconciling PSED disputes
rather than judicial review
• EHRC to produce clearer guidance on the minimum
requirements
• EHRC to work with sector regulators, inspectorates and
ombudsmen with respect to compliance and sector
specific guidance
• Public bodies must adopt a proportionate approach to
compliance and not to ‘gold plate’
• Public bodies to reduce the burdens on the private
sector
Joining up the dots 12

13. JCHR response to the recommendations
re reforms to judicial review
JCHR Inquiry November 2013 into “the proposal
to make non-justiciable the statutory duty
imposed on public bodies by the Equality Act, to
have due regard to the need to eliminate
discrimination, by providing an alternative, non-
judicial mechanism for resolving disputes about
whether bodies have complied with the duty.”
Joining up the dots 13

14. Review of PSED in Wales
Key Findings
The value of the PSED was described, by participating organisations, as:
• raising the profile of the equality agenda;
• providing a clear structure and focus for equality work;
• promoting cultures of inclusivity, fairness and respect.
The Welsh specific duties were valued by listed and non-listed bodies for
• providing clarity about what needed to be done to implement the duty.
• All participating organisations could provide at least one example of evidence demonstrating
progress related to the general duty. More typically organisations could give more than one
example.
• Greatest progress had been made in putting in place the foundations to do equality work.
There was also some evidence of progress directly related to outcomes for service users and
staff.
• The study found no evidence of under-compliance. Compared to other research on the English
specific duties this study also found more limited evidence of over-compliance, which is doing
more than required as a result of a lack of clarity in guidance.
• Key challenges for participating organisations arose from the insufficient signposting and
sharing of practical information. This would help organisations know that they are
• Key challenges for participating organisations arose from the insufficient signposting and
sharing of practical information. This would help organisations know that they are approaching
the PSED in the best way and avoid duplication of effort.
Joining up the dots 14

15. International comparisons of GDP
Joining up the dots 15

16. Filling the budget gap
Joining up the dots 16

17. Welfare Reforms Savings
Joining up the dots 17
Benefits Savings
Changes to Tax Credits £5,275 million
Changes to Housing Benefit for renters in the private sector: £1,640 million
Increases in the deductions taken from Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in respect of other
adults living at the property
£130 million
The restriction of contributory Employment and Support Allowance to one year for claimants in the
“Work Related Activity Group”
£1,600 million
The replacement of Disability Living Allowance with Personal Independence Payment £1,350 million
The abolition of Council Tax Benefit and replacing it with locally determined Council Tax Support
schemes
£355 million
The introduction of Bedroom Tax £465
The introduction of a cap on total benefit receipt for most households where no adult is in work of
£500 for families or £350 a week for single people
£185 million
The uprating of benefits and tax credits by 1 per cent instead the Consumer Price Index £2,680 million
The introduction of Universal Credit replacing the main means tested benefits with a single benefit
paid to the head of the household
£1,600 million
Tapering of Child Benefits £2,525 million
The reduction in the uprating of Child Benefit to 1 per cent £360 million

18. Joining up the dots 18

19. The impacts 1
The local impacts of welfare reform – An assessment of cumulative impacts
and mitigations (LGA & CESI) August 2013 -
• Income of households on benefits on average lower £1,615 a year £13 a week
• At local authority level average impacts relatively evenly spread except London
where losses are £1,500-£1,650 per year + Average loss in London £1,965
• Overall 45 % households of “working age” receive the main state benefits
• The 10% of areas with the lowest proportions of households on benefit
overwhelmingly in outer London and the south east
• Highest % on benefits: north west, north east, West Midlands, Yorkshire and
Humber
• Impacts of reforms likely to be most strongly felt in areas with the highest
dependence on benefit – the north east, Lancashire, central north west,
Birmingham, Black Country, parts of London and a swathe of costal towns
including: Thanet, Tendring, Great Yarmouth, Scarborough, Plymouth and Torbay
• 59 % of all welfare reform reductions fall on households where somebody works
• In 314 out of 325 local authorities the reductions for working households is greater
when compared to the reductions for households where no one works
Joining up the dots 19

20. The impacts 2
• Data from 107 local authorities shows 86,000 households have been forced to
look for one-bedroom homes, of which only 33,000 have become available in
the past year. (False Economy)
• More than 50,000 people in local authority housing affected by the so-called
bedroom tax have fallen behind on rent and face eviction,
• At least another 30,000 people living in housing association properties have
also fallen behind on rent payments since the bedroom tax came in (National
Housing Federation)
• A survey of 51 housing associations around England, carried out by the
National Housing Federation, found that 51% (32,432) of residents affected by
the bedroom tax have been unable to pay their rent between April and June.
• A quarter (25%) of those affected by the tax are in rent arrears for the first
time, according to a smaller sample of 38 housing associations.
• Earlier research by the National Housing Federation also shows that many
families who try to downsize to avoid the tax will be stuck where they are due
to a shortage of smaller homes - and will still be charged the penalty. In
March, the Federation estimated that although 180,000 households were
under-occupying two bedroom social homes, only 85,000 one-bed social
homes became available in 2011-12.(3)
• - See more at: http://www.housing.org.uk/media/press-releases/more-than-
half-of-families-hit-by-bedroom-tax-pushed-into-debt#sthash.TsvtcVQw.dpuf
Joining up the dots 20

21. The most recent data
• An Ipsos MORI survey carried out in May 2014 for the
National Housing Federation found that:
• Nearly a third (32%) of people affected by the bedroom tax
say they have cut back on food
• More than a quarter (26%) have cut back on heating as a
result of the tax.
• Nearly half (46%) of those affected have needed to borrow
money to help pay their rent since the introduction of the
bedroom tax in April 2013
• More than three quarters (76%) of those affected are
concerned about falling behind on rent.
• Nearly nine in 10 (89%) of those affected are concerned
about meeting their living costs.
• Seven in 10 (70%) of those affected are concerned about
eviction.
Joining up the dots 21

22. Joining up the dots 22

23. Context setting - How does inequality affect us?
• Bigger status differences: status becomes more
important
• Status competition increases
• Increased insecurities about appearances, how we
are seen, “social evaluation anxieties”
• More downward social prejudice, stigmatisation of
the poor
• More discrimination against vulnerable minorities
and women
• Lower levels of trust and community life
• More violence
Joining up the dots 23

24. Joining up the dots 24

25. Joining up the dots 25

26. Joining up the dots 26

27. Joining up the dots 27

28. Joining up the dots 28

29. Joining up the dots 29

30. Joining up the dots 30

31. Joining up the dots 31

32. Joining up the dots 32

33. Summary & conclusions
• Dismantlement of individual rights under
cover of austerity
• Removing the teeth of the guard dog
• Divide, mislead & mis-rule
• The impacts of austerity
• The growth in inequality
• Why unequal societies are bad
• Seeing where the dots lead
Joining up the dots 33

34. Anthony Robinson
• uk.linkedin.com/in/anthonylynwallrobinson/
• Scott-Moncrieff & Associates Ltd solicitors
Contact: larobinson@scomo.com http://www.scomo.com/
• Human Rights & Equality Consultancy
Contact: anthony@humanrightsandequality.com
http://www.humanrightsandequality.com/home/
Joining up the dots 34