Changes to the framing of equality within the EHRC

This next part will examine the changing way in which the EHRC has framed equality through an examination of the organisation’s business plans and through interviews with two former and two current staff members. As the literature review has shown equality is a widely contested term that has been understood in a variety of different ways. The meaning that it has been given within the EHRC is important not only because it might be likely to impact on the way in which the EHRC

enforces the PSED but also because as the body with primary responsibility for explaining the PSED to public sector bodies the EHRC’s framing of the term

equality may also influence how the term is framed within public bodies themselves.

The 2009 Business Plan frames inequality as a structural issue, setting a commitment that the EHRC will ‘address the structural inequalities which have an impact on the groups in our mandate.’ (EHRC Business Plan 2009 p14). It describes the role of the EHRC thus:

As the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain, the Commission aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. We

135

challenge prejudice and disadvantage and promote the importance of human rights (EHRC Business plan 2009-10).

By separating the elimination of discrimination from the ‘reduction of inequality’ the EHRC is framing equality as something broader than simple non-discrimination. It describes its role as an active one – to ‘challenge prejudice and disadvantage’, framing inequality as not simply the result of individual prejudice but also broader structural disadvantage. A similar formulation was included in the 2010/11 Business plan, published shortly after the 2010 General Election. However by the 2011/12 and 2012/13 Business Plans these concepts of equality had disappeared. This plan

contains no general statement of the role of the EHRC at all. They both contain a report of work done over the past year and a series of specific objectives on particular work programmes but no overall ‘mission’ or ‘vision’ statement. By the time of the 2014/15 Business Plan the language used to describe the role of the EHRC has changed significantly:

The Commission was established by Parliament under the Equality Act 2006 to help make Britain a fairer place for everyone. We do this by helping to ensure that everyone is protected against unfair treatment and has fair

opportunities; by promoting and safeguarding the human rights we all enjoy; and by encouraging mutual respect between people of all backgrounds. If everyone, regardless of background, has an equal opportunity to fulfil their full potential in their work and in their day to day life, and to contribute what they can to our society and economy, Britain will be more successful and more prosperous (EHRC Business plan 2014-15).

Here the focus is on fairness and opportunity rather than structural inequality and ‘equal opportunity’ is framed in terms of its benefit to a ‘successful and prosperous’ Britain. This is a version of the ‘business case’ for equality, although focussing on the success and prosperity of the country as a whole rather than an individual business. The benefits of equality to Britain are framed in the language of business and the economy, rather than broader social benefits. There is no mention of reducing inequality, nor of challenging disadvantage. Inequality is framed in individual terms of people being unfairly or denied opportunities. These changes in approach reflect changes in the way in which equality has been framed by

136

Government both before and after the 2010 election. During this time period the EHRC has had a change of Chair, and a change of Chief Executive, which may also have contributed to the change in the way equality is framed. However the position of EHRC Chair is a public appointment, which has to be approved at Ministerial level and it is unlikely that a Chair would be appointed who was considered likely to publicly disagree with the Government’s position on equality.

EHRC guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty similarly frames the PSED in terms of a ‘business case’; in this case focussing on the benefit to public sector organisations covered by the duty. There are two main guidance documents published by the EHRC covering the PSED; the ‘Essential Guide to the Public Sector Equality Duty’ and ‘Technical Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty’. In both documents the emphasis is on the PSED as a tool to improve policy making, improving efficiency and targeting of services and increasing productivity through better use of human capital. This is a public sector version of the business case for equality. The focus is on greater efficiency rather than greater profitability but the emphasis is on the benefit to the organisation rather than the importance of equality as a value in its own right. This ‘business case’ was also mentioned by current and former EHRC staff. Although none used this exact term they described how the most effective way to persuade public bodies to take action on the duty was to focus on the benefits for their organisation. One former staff member said:

If it is all about enforcement [….] you scare people and they just do the minimum and tick box stuff to get them off your back. But if you go down the route that it is all about good policy making and delivering better services and actually meeting the needs of their communities, it helps you meet your core purpose more effectively.

In these interviews the business case approach was presented primarily as a strategy to encourage others to act on equality, rather than the way in which these staff and former staff members themselves framed equality. It was clear from interviews that all four women shared a commitment to delivering concrete equality outcomes, seeing the PSED as one of a series of tools that the EHRC had at its disposal to do this. The two former staff members framed equality as intersectional, discussing the impact of a combination of race, gender and social class in particular. Both made it

137

clear that they regretted the loss of the duty to consider socio-economic status, particularly when combined with other characteristics. One said

Often socio economic disadvantage goes along with protected characteristics […] if you had the socio economic duty and dual discrimination that would have been an interesting combination. It could have been a useful lens.

This suggests a tension between the ‘official’ framing of equality based on a business case approach and the attitudes of staff members who used the business case as a tool to persuade others to act while retaining their private commitment to equality as social justice.