I have seen the (so far unpublished) 26-point programme and it is dominated by gender equality and a smattering of projects on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) issues… but not one single mention of race, faith or disabilities.
Hardly any wonder, then, that some people feel justified in saying “I told you so” when they warned way back in 2006 of a ‘hierarchy of equality’ developing when all equalities strands were merged together and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was set up.
The new equalities priorities aren’t the responsibility of the EHRC – they don’t do very much since they’ve had three-quarters of their funding chopped since 2010 – but is produced by the Government Equalities Office, or GEO.
Although the GEO has itself faced cuts they haven’t been anything like as severe as those meted out on the EHRC. And, since the GEO is better resourced, one would have hoped they might take up a bit of slack from the EHRC, especially as both are funded out of the same government pot. Any such hope was clearly in vain.
The complete absence of any GEO measure to tackle race inequality underlines the extent to which race remains firmly off the governments’ agenda.
I had hoped that the Lib Dem equalities ministers, Jo Swinson and Don Foster, might have flagged up the absence of race, especially after BAME party activists had been so frank with them in private meetings this year. But it looks like our energy and passion has not borne fruit on this occasion. In one ear and out the other.
The GEO document talks about broadening aspiration and choices for young girls, women in enterprise, helping parents with children back to work, childcare as a business opportunity, gender equality in employment practices, older women in the economy, body confidence and women in sport. It also calls for further investigation into barriers facing LGBT groups.
But not a dickeybird on barriers facing people of colour, or any other measure or aspiration to help those held back by racism.
The only sentence in the GEO report that impacts on BAME groups is this line: “reducing the compliance burden associated with the Public Sector Equality Duty.” In other words scrap it.
We’ve only recently had a huge, ultimately successful, fight to save the ‘general duty’ – an aspiration to work towards the elimination of discrimination after ministers planned to axe this mission statement.
Now the GEO want to ditch another part of Britain’s equalities laws, the Public Sector Equality Duty, which in many ways is even more important than the general duty. Speaks volumes about the priority ministers give to equalities. If it isn’t their pet subject then they’re just not interested.
Just a few weeks ago the coalition were forced to back down on the general duty after the House of Lords rejected the plan twice. I confidently predict that if ministers try to scrap the Public Sector Equality Duty there will be an even bigger rebellion, and a higher profile public campaign to save it. All of which will simply reinforce a public impression of how seriously, or not, the government takes equalities.
Judging by the GEO work programme you only count if you are a woman or are gay or lesbian. I’m all for action to address inequality in both these areas but not at the exclusion of other equalities subjects like race, faith, disabilities and human rights.
By Lester Holloway @brolezholloway