Lies, damned lies and the EHRC in Scotland

there are moments when even
a high-decibel use of 'WTF',
with full stops between each
word, is simply inadequate

Sometime the ever helpful safety-valve expletive 'WTF' helps when you read such as the latest exploits or murmurings of the hapless Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary in England, or stub your toe as you stumble and fumble in the dark towards the bathroom at some unearthly hour in the morning.  And then there are moments when even a high-decibel use of 'WTF', with full stops between each word, is simply inadequate.  This is about one such moment.

Yesterday, the EHRC in Scotland published a report and press release on just how well/badly public bodies in Scotland were doing in meeting new specific equality duties which came into effect in 2012 and required a slew of reports from them to be published by end of April this year.  I have already published research into the performance of the major public bodies in publishing data on their gender pay gaps, and shared it free of charge with the EHRC.  The EHRC press release tells us :

"The Scottish Government introduced these powerful equality duties in 2012 to ensure that public authorities tackle the most pressing inequalities"

And I had always thought the specific duties were introduced to help public bodies meet the general equality duty, which has eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations at its core.  See for yourself here on the EHRC web site.  But no, in Scotland the EHRC has decided that is clearly too hard, to challenging, too difficult an objective for public bodies and now they just need to "tackle the most pressing inequalities".  Might be worth checking with the Scottish Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee [SP EOC] if they are aware of the downgraded equality goals set by the EHRC in Scotland?

the EHRC press release
describes the specific equality
duties as "powerful"

But that isn't the toe stubbing, 'WTF', moment.  It is when the EHRC press release describes the specific equality duties as "powerful".  

Way back in 2011, the Scottish government invited the SP EOC to rubber stamp draft specific equality duties for Scotland.  These had been the subject of a marathon consultation and then an analysis report which conveniently ignored that the majority of respondents who were not public bodies opposed what was on the table.  At the eleventh-hour, some of us decided the stakes were too high and lobbied the SP EOC to seek amendments to the draft and strengthen the duties so that discrimination was eliminated in the years to come.  We were asked to provide evidence at a session of the SP EOC on 8th March 2011 when the minister would also formally move a motion for the Committee to adopt his draft.  You can read here all that was said at the meeting and how the Committee decided to throw out the draft specific duties and invite government to improve on them and on its consultation process and practice.

The day before, the EHRC Scotland Director, Ros Micklem, wrote to the SP EOC.  This letter set out the EHRC's position on the then draft duties and was a heavy handed attempt to bounce the Committee into approving the draft duties:

"We are supportive of the duties as currently framed, being both robust enough for regulation purposes but without being overly prescriptive"

The EHRC went on to point out that any decision to delay the adoption of the specific duties would not :

"be in the best interests of the Scottish people"

So.  The EHRC reckoned then that the draft duties were robust enough and that delaying them would not be in the interests of the Scottish people.

Now?  The interests of the
Scottish people don't rate a mention by the EHRC

Now?  The interests of the Scottish people don't rate a mention by the EHRC, the duties which the EHRC in effect opposed are now "powerful", and the goal posts are unilaterally moved by the EHRC from eliminating discrimination to "tackling the most pressing inequalities".  Joe Stalin would have applauded this capacity for re-writing history and air-brushing inconvenient realities and truths out of the picture.

Angels of equality in Scotland have fallen far and fast from grace

Summer starts next week.  The year is almost half-way through.  Equality has taken another hammering as we move into the third year of coalition government at Westminster.

People for whom equality law is supposed to offer a bulwark against discrimination, a crowbar with which to lever open some equality in opportunity, are being battered by the ideological drive to cut public spending, and the protections supposed to be on offer in the shape of the Equality Act 2010 and the Equality & Human Rights Commission [EHRC] are as effective as food labelling promising minced beef content.

In April this year, research found that there is overwhelming evidence, submitted directly by public bodies themselves, that the legislative framework on equalities is being routinely ignored.  The research into how public sector budgets checked that budgets did not embed discrimination found that the default cultural mind set in the public sector is that there is no real depth or extent to discrimination within the sector.  The discourse within budget EQIAs is not on ‘cuts’, but almost always on ‘savings’.  The narrative within EQIAs rarely references discrimination, as if by airbrushing the word out of the public sector lexicon it can in some parody of ‘Animal Farm’ demonstrate that all are already equal and indeed that some are more equal than others.

The reaction of the EHRC in Scotland to this ?  Zilch.  Nothing.  No high profile court cases started.  No press release advising Scotland's communities that the EHRC was vigilant in ensuring their protection was 24/7 and that any failure on the part of anyone to meet the equality law would find the EHRC's tanks on their lawn.

OK, maybe that was just too hard for them to grapple with.  What about equal pay ?

Good PR for the EHRC.  Makes them
look as if they are on the equality case
and on the side of the angels.

On the legal duty to publish gender pay gaps by end April this year, research found that quite a few public bodies had failed to meet their duty.  Straightforward.  Easy peasy.  EHRC in Scotland could fire off a warning letter and invite each public body to explain the absence of a report on the gender pay gap.  Good PR for the EHRC.  Makes them look as if they are on the equality case and on the side of the angels.  So what did they do?  Nothing.  Nada,  Zilch.  They won't move until they pay out £thousands to a researcher to tell them what research already carried out, at no cost to them, tells them.  

OK.  Let's set aside the inaction on enforcing compliance with the gender pay gap regulations.  

What about the bedroom tax, which is causing massive dislocation and disruption for people and their communities?  Surely the EHRC in Scotland would want to take a high-profile, robust, derring-do stance in protecting disabled people from the disproportionate adverse impact on them of the bedroom tax?  A few unambiguous statements to the press, comprehensive and clear guidance to landlords and councils, a ray of hope offered to disabled people in Scotland that they are not to be left to fight this attack on their own?  Nothing.  While Cosla makes with the weasel words on how they can't disobey the law and have to collect the rents owed, the EHRC in Scotland has nothing public to say on this mean-spirited measure.

The workfare programmes invented by Ian Duncan Smith that gets people stacking shelves in Poundland in fear of their Jobseekers Allowance being sanctioned?  Where was the EHRC in defending the backs of people against government in this 21st century form of degrading slavery?  Probably shopping in Poundland for its 99p-for-three pack of throwaway principles.

The EHRC in Scotland is clearly not able to
give people in Scotland's equality communities
the protection they deserve.  The angels of
equality have fallen far and fast from grace.

In the last few weeks the replacement of Disability Living Allowance with Personal Independence Payment has arrived, Ian Duncan Smith's latest money-saving wheeze.  What succour has the EHRC in Scotland offered disabled people, what robust denunciation has been made of Smith's continued stigmatising of disabled people?  Follow this link to read for yourself just how often the EHRC in Scotland has stood tall this year so far on these and other issues, and commanded the attention of the media as it explained just how it would protect people from the prejudice and bigotry of their own government.  The EHRC in Scotland is clearly not able to give people in Scotland's equality communities the protection they deserve.  The angels of equality have fallen far and fast from grace.

Scotland's public sector - Gender Pay Gaps of up to 30% and no plans to close the gaps

Recent research into compliance with the Scottish specific equality duties on reporting gender pay gaps found that out of the 58 public bodies reporting gender pay gaps of over +or- 5%, just 4 offered a coherent plan for closing the pay gaps.  

The vast bulk [93%] of bodies in Scotland offered nothing in their reports which suggested they had any clear or coherent plan for reducing those gender pay gaps, all of which are in excess of +or-5% and some even reaching 30%.

One might conclude from this that the specific duty to publish gender pay data was not explicit enough in requiring bodies to act on what an analysis of the gap told them, with a view to closing the gaps.  Or one could conclude that it was deliberate and wilful inaction on the part of 58 public bodies and that they will go on doing nothing to close the gaps until government tells them otherwise.

The solution is simple.  Tighten up any loopholes uncovered by research such as this and revise the regulations so that even numpties in public bodies can understand.

Another common feature in the gender pay gap reports which have been published is the tendency to conclude that where a grade by grade analysis shows no major [i.e. +or-5%] gaps in the average pay of women and men on those grades, and when the pay gap for the whole workforce comes in at more than 5%, then that is not a problem because, some reports suggest, women choose to work part-time and/or women tend to be in the lower paid grades, or even choose to take the low paid jobs.  

The understanding by the public sector of occupational segregation, the roots this has in structural and institutional gender discrimination, and the consequences for the pay packets of women workers, is seriously compromised by the inability of the public sector to recognise discrimination in all its forms.  

If it is not that the intellectual capacity of public sector professionals has been compromised, then the only other reasonable option is that there exists in Scotland a stubborn, neanderthal cohort of senior professionals - including women - who believe that gender pay inequality is just not an issue.