In the last LGBT History Month Bulletin we made some comments on the Equalities Office document 'Making it Work'. In particular we challenged the suggestion that monitoring for LGBT employees be made optional and the removal of the obligation to carry out equality impact Assessements as part of the public sector duty.
The Equalities Office has made a response. It is as follows:
School’s Out helpfully drew people’s attention to the Government Equalities Office’s consultation on specific duties. GEO is pleased to be able to take this opportunity to respond to some of School’s Out/LGBT History Month’s comments.
What is the consultation about?
The Equality Bill will place a new legally-enforceable duty on all public bodies to consider how they can eliminate discrimination and advance equality for people of different groups. This includes lesbians, gay men and bisexual people and trans people. Stonewall described this as the missing piece of the jigsaw of LGBT equality.
Government is now consulting on the shape of the specific duties. These are the more detailed processes that public bodies will need to put in place in order to help them meet the requirements of the general Equality Duty.
Why aren't you requiring mandatory reporting on sexual orientation employment rates as part of the specific duties?
Let's be clear: public bodies will need to gather and analyse evidence relating to sexual orientation from a variety of sources in order to meet the general duty. That could well be the number of gay people they employ, but it could also be evidence of service take-up by lesbian and gay people, customer satisfaction, local and national statistics, evidence which comes from the involvement of lesbian and gay people in the objective-setting process and so on.
But we are not proposing to require all public bodies to publish their LGB employment rates. Although some public bodies have made excellent progress in this area, it is nevertheless the case that many lesbian and gay people do not feel ready to come out to their employers. To make this a requirement could result in widespread under-reporting, and if it is not done in a sensitive manner could actually be counter-productive. Nor is the number of LGB people who are in employment a stubborn and long-standing inequality in the same way as, for example, the number of disabled people in employment is: publishing LGB employment rates may not be a meaningful indicator of LGB equality, and could in fact mask real inequalities such as how LGB people are treated when they engage with public services.
Why aren’t you requiring public bodies to set objectives for LGB people?
We want public bodies to set objectives which are based on the evidence of need. This will mean public bodies directing their resources and their attention towards those areas where they are most needed and where they can make most difference. In many cases that will mean an LGB-specific objective, or perhaps a “themed” objective (such as tackling bullying) which pulls in a number of different protected groups.
Guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission will help public bodies decide how many objectives they should set. So for instance, although small public bodies like museums may not set objectives for all eight protected groups, we would expect larger authorities such as big government departments, to have objectives in all areas and for all groups.
Why are you abolishing Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs)?
We are not abolishing EIAs. At the moment, EIAs can be very effective in helping public bodies understand how their policies affect different groups. But they can also be bureaucratic and ineffective if they are not done well. Our proposal is aimed at getting public bodies to carry out better-quality, EIAs which are focused less on the process to be followed and more on the outcome they deliver.
How can I get involved?
The consultation ends on 30 September. Copies of the consultation document are available on the GEO website. Send your responses to specificduties@geo.gsi.gov.uk.
What is the consultation about?
The Equality Bill will place a new legally-enforceable duty on all public bodies to consider how they can eliminate discrimination and advance equality for people of different groups. This includes lesbians, gay men and bisexual people and trans people. Stonewall described this as the missing piece of the jigsaw of LGBT equality.
Government is now consulting on the shape of the specific duties. These are the more detailed processes that public bodies will need to put in place in order to help them meet the requirements of the general Equality Duty.
Why aren't you requiring mandatory reporting on sexual orientation employment rates as part of the specific duties?
Let's be clear: public bodies will need to gather and analyse evidence relating to sexual orientation from a variety of sources in order to meet the general duty. That could well be the number of gay people they employ, but it could also be evidence of service take-up by lesbian and gay people, customer satisfaction, local and national statistics, evidence which comes from the involvement of lesbian and gay people in the objective-setting process and so on.
But we are not proposing to require all public bodies to publish their LGB employment rates. Although some public bodies have made excellent progress in this area, it is nevertheless the case that many lesbian and gay people do not feel ready to come out to their employers. To make this a requirement could result in widespread under-reporting, and if it is not done in a sensitive manner could actually be counter-productive. Nor is the number of LGB people who are in employment a stubborn and long-standing inequality in the same way as, for example, the number of disabled people in employment is: publishing LGB employment rates may not be a meaningful indicator of LGB equality, and could in fact mask real inequalities such as how LGB people are treated when they engage with public services.
Why aren’t you requiring public bodies to set objectives for LGB people?
We want public bodies to set objectives which are based on the evidence of need. This will mean public bodies directing their resources and their attention towards those areas where they are most needed and where they can make most difference. In many cases that will mean an LGB-specific objective, or perhaps a “themed” objective (such as tackling bullying) which pulls in a number of different protected groups.
Guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission will help public bodies decide how many objectives they should set. So for instance, although small public bodies like museums may not set objectives for all eight protected groups, we would expect larger authorities such as big government departments, to have objectives in all areas and for all groups.
Why are you abolishing Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs)?
We are not abolishing EIAs. At the moment, EIAs can be very effective in helping public bodies understand how their policies affect different groups. But they can also be bureaucratic and ineffective if they are not done well. Our proposal is aimed at getting public bodies to carry out better-quality, EIAs which are focused less on the process to be followed and more on the outcome they deliver.
How can I get involved?
The consultation ends on 30 September. Copies of the consultation document are available on the GEO website. Send your responses to specificduties@geo.gsi.gov.uk.
Consultation Deadline: Wednesday
Schools OUT urges groups to respond to the Government Equalities Office's document: Making it Work by Wednesday September 30th.
We believe that public bodies should monitor their LGBT employment rates, even if they don't publish them. No doubt, as the Equalities Office says, there will be under-reporting at first, but this will change once the process is up and running. Otherwise many - particularly large - organisations can only speculate as to how many LGBT employees thay have.
The response also says that the Equalities Office would "expect larger authorities" to have objectives set for all 8 protected groups. We believe that expectation should be a requirement.
The response also asserts that there are no plans to "abolish" EIAs. Nobody to our knowledge said there were. But they are to be made facultative and we believe that this, in reality, means that they won't happen.
You have three days to respond to the document. It can be found on the GEO website. Responses should be sent to specificduties@geo.gsi.gov.uk