I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

Earlier this year, Scottish Government proposed new specific equality duties and asked the Parliamentary Equal Opportunities Committee to approve them.

This followed the by now traditional consultation on a draft of these. 

In the last few days of this process it became clear that what was being proposed was pretty much what had been issued for consultation.  Some of us who had viewed the original draft specific equality duties as weak, and said so in our formal responses, sensed all was not as it should be when we realised that the government’s report on the consultation outcomes was only going to be available a matter of days before the Committee was asked to vote them into being.

An analysis of the consultation report revealed that it was less than objective.  In simple terms, the report claimed the vast majority of respondents positively supported the vast majority of the draft proposals.  Given that the vast majority of respondents were public bodies [lets call them turkeys] it came as no real surprise that they were sometimes wildly enthusiastic supporters of the draft specific equality duties, the overall effect of which, had  they been adopted, would have indefinitely postponed Christmas – or in real terms, the delivery of person-centred and measurable equality which changes the life experience of people from the diverse communities of Scotland.

A matter of days before the Committee was due to meet and vote, a small number of people who had argued for stronger, more challenging duties, concluded that the proposals were so weak as to present real dangers to the next few decades of work on delivering equalities.  They lobbied politicians from all parties, explaining the dangers of sleepwalking into adopting weak duties and the lost opportunities of designing duties which would deliver Scottish solutions to Scotland’s inequalities.

The Committee recognised that there were serious and legitimate concerns being flagged  and arranged for two of those dissenters to attend and present evidence to the Committee meeting at which the duties were to be formally considered and voted on.  Papers flew around networks and became part of the public record as they were also posted on the Committee web site by the Parliament Clerks.  The Equality & Human Rights Commission in Scotland got wind of this very late development and with 24 hours to go lobbied members of the Committee, urging them to adopt the specific equality duties as proposed.  At the same time, organisations such as the STUC and Unison also lobbied the Committee, expressing concerns that the duties were not what Scotland needed.

On the day, formal evidence against adopting the proposed duties was presented to the Committee, with the two people doing so being closely cross-examined by members.  They were followed immediately after by the Minister, then Alex Neil, and government officials.  They too presented a case - this time for adopting the proposed duties -  and they too were closely cross-examined by members.  The Committee was not persuaded by the Minister and the proposed specific equality duties were voted down.

I believe the Committee made a courageous decision.  The easy option would have been to dismissed the minority dissent and gone with the apparently overwhelming majority in favour of what was on offer.  The Committee did not take the easy decision.  They recognised that there were real questions around the consultation process, around the analysis of and report on what had been submitted by respondents, and overall on just how effective the duties would be in providing Scottish solutions to Scotland’s particular equality challenges.

I would, of course, say all this.  I was one of the minority dissenting.  You can make your own mind up, view and listen to the evidence, as it is all a matter of parliamentary film record.

What has happened since in many senses confirms to me that the Committee made the right decision.

I am advised that many good and decent people from across the spectrum of equalities work in Scotland have expressed dismay and even anger at my actions and those of the other very small band of dissenters.  Part of the reaction appears to be that having no specific equality duties is a seriously bad thing and hampers continuing work on equalities.  All I can say to that analysis is that if any set of specific equality duties [past, proposed, rejected, and yet to come] would in themselves guarantee delivering equalities rather than simply provide excuses for government and the public sector to spend a few more decades just talking about equalities, then I for one would have barricaded the Committee Room and not allowed members out until they had agreed to vote them through. 

I am also advised that the actions of the small band of dissenters are seen by some as arrogant, amongst other things.  For me personally, the characterisation is not unfamiliar and so bounces of a thick skin.  It also helps that I am deaf and invariably cannot readily hear the slings and arrows of the mainstream.  On behalf of those others who also dissented, I would question how one can work in the equalities field and not embrace diversity, difference and dissent, and show respect, particularly to those with whom one dissents.

"I disapprove of what you say,

but I will defend to the death

your right to say it" 

Evelyn Beatrice Hall

That capacity has to be at the heart of all our equalities work, else we are doomed to spend the next few decades locked in sterile debate, repeating the the endless loop of the lost opportunities of the last few decades of equality duties, and failing the people whose cause we claim to serve.