Código Orgánico de la Productividad Comercio e Inversiones

Equality work within County Council is placed within a wider framework which includes human rights and is centred around concepts of fairness, respect for

individual diversity and the ‘business case’ benefits for the organisation. The County Council’s Equalities Strategy emphasises the link between equality, community cohesion and human rights presenting a ‘human rights vision of equality’ that ‘extends beyond discrimination to include fairness, dignity, respect and access to the basic rights that allow a person to take part in a democratic society’. Within the strategy equality is explicitly defined in terms of difference:

Equality does not mean treating everyone the same. In reality, it means treating everyone differently in order that all people are treated fairly and with respect. (Equalities Strategy, County Council).

This focus on difference and the need to meet the diverse needs of people in the county forms the basis for what is described as the ‘moral case’ for equality in the strategy:

We know that the population of [county] is diverse and that people have very different backgrounds and life experiences. Therefore, we want to ensure that we provide a range of services and facilities that meet the needs of local people and that, as an employer, we ensure fair recruitment and provide a work environment that is free from discrimination. (Equalities Strategy, County Council).

This emphasis on meeting the needs of a diverse population frames equality, along with the issues of community cohesion and human rights covered by the strategy, primarily as an issue of ‘recognition’, acknowledging, respecting and responding to difference. The framing focusses on difference at an individual level: the definition of equality given in the strategy refers to equality of opportunity in terms of ‘equal access and equal treatment’ for individuals. Rather than equality of outcome it refers to ‘outcomes that meet the needs of the individual’, although it does not specify how these are identified. This focus on difference is reinforced by the definition of diversity which immediately follows; ‘diversity is about recognising and valuing

187

differences in their broadest sense’. The definition also suggests that diversity should not be valued for its own sake but in terms of ‘understanding how people’s

differences and similarities can be mobilised for the benefit of the individual, an organisation and society as a whole.’ This focus on the ‘business case’ for diversity with its emphasis on the benefits to the organisation is repeated later in the document in a section entitled ‘Why are equality, diversity, community cohesion and human rights important to the Council?’ which states:

There is also a strong business case for investing in equality, diversity, community cohesion and human rights. It will result in us designing and delivering services that people want to receive and can lead to greater employee productivity, creativity, innovation and flexibility.Additionally, this effective equality, diversity, community cohesion and human rights activity will in turn create economic benefits that will positively impact upon all residents. (Equalities Strategy, County Council).

As Dickens (2006) has pointed out the danger with the business case approach is that can lead to equality issues where there is no business case for action being ignored and to business case arguments being made against taking action on equality at all. The Strategy also includes a large number of examples of past and current council projects, the majority of which include some form of community engagement or consultation. The definition of human rights also refers to participation in decision making, stating that human rights ‘protect people’s freedom to control their own lives, effectively take part in decisions made by public authorities which impact upon their rights, and get fair and equal services from public authorities.’ Human rights in this strategy are limited to the rights contained in the 1998 Human Rights Act and do not include social and economic rights which might involve a focus on re-distribution as well as recognition.

The absence of any issues of distributive equality can also be seen in the information given in the strategy in the section on the population of the county. This provides information about the ethnic breakdown, age profile, number of disabled people and so on in the county but does not provide any information about the relative situation of different groups. There is no information about income differences, or differences in employment, health, education or other outcomes except for a small amount of

188

data on the proportion of council employees from each group. Indeed throughout the strategy there is a notable lack of any concrete information about inequality or particular equality challenges facing the county.

Gender is largely absent from County Council’s Equality Strategy. Under the heading ‘gender’ the strategy simply provides data on the proportion of the population that are women and men. Elsewhere in the strategy there is a brief

summary of a project to improve the number of women in senior positions within the council but this does not include any information about the level of women in senior positions or provide evidence of concrete change to this as a result of the project. The Equality Strategy refers to a series of other council strategies which relate to equality. Of these three might be considered to have a particular gender impact; the carers’ strategy, the family poverty strategy and the employment strategy. None of these include any significant recognition of gender as an issue. The carers’ strategy has one mention of gender, in the ‘facts about carers’ section which states that 42% of carers are men. The family poverty strategy mentions lone parents as being at particular risk of poverty but does not acknowledge that poverty is gendered in any other way. The employment strategy contains data showing that women are under- represented at senior management level compared to their representation within the council but does not comment on this. It contains an objective to increase the representation of under-represented groups within the council staff and at senior management level but does not state which these groups are, or provide any specific details of how it aims to tackle this. The Equalities Strategy makes no reference to any County Council strategy on domestic or sexual violence although both have been recognised as a cause and consequence of gender inequality.

This framing of equality in either individualistic terms, or in terms of a business case for managing diversity with little recognition of structural inequalities is close to the model adopted by the Coalition Government and appears to reflect the Conservative leadership of County Council. As with London Borough ‘the frame shapes the outcome’ (McBride and Mazur 2010 p12). In London Borough the framing of equality as an issue of redistribution lead to policies to reduce socio-economic inequalities. In County Council it led to a focus on individual equal opportunities.

189 7.4.2 Framing of equality by officers

Among Equality Officers at County Council there was agreement that equality was ‘quite a high level priority’. They suggested that this is unusual in a Conservative run local authority and was the result of leadership of senior staff within the Council who were ‘pushing for it’. A significant reason for this push was the growing ethnic diversity of the county as people moved from the extremely ethnically diverse city in the centre of the county into the County Council area. However there were

significant differences in the way equality was framed by the officers themselves. One officer discussed equality largely in terms of the council’s policies and

procedures, framing equality as a largely bureaucratic practice without mentioning any specific inequalities within the county that these policies might be aiming to address. She described equality work within the council using terms and definitions that closely reflected those used in official council documents referring to the business, legal and moral case for equality, respect and dignity and equality as difference. She made frequent references to ‘diversity’, mirroring the focus on diversity management and the business case for equality and diversity in the

Council’s policy and strategy documents. A second officer also repeatedly used the language of diversity and respect for difference but did so in the context of

discussion of specific problems such as under representation of BAME staff, racist language used by some councillors and the need to address tensions between different groups within the county, particularly LGBT communities and some religious groups. Her focus was largely on issues of recognition. A third framed his work largely in terms of protecting the needs of the most vulnerable, particularly poorer or disabled people. This may have been a reflection of his role within the adult social care department but his more general comments, beyond describing his specific role, suggested a personal concern with re-distributive equality.

While the first officer appeared to see the PSED almost entirely as a question of bureaucratic process the other two described it as a tool to deliver specific changes. This mirrored the split between outcome focussed and process focussed officers in both London Borough and City Council. Both of the process focussed officers welcomed the addition of human rights to their equality work, arguing that it provided an additional tool to help achieve specific ends. In the cases of the second officer human rights provided a useful framework in order to balance the sometimes