The Equalities Review process included extensive deliberation and consultation on the underlying conceptions of the meaning of equality that should underlie public policy. Informed by a discussion paper for the review by Dr Tania Burchardt of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion it identified four broad possible definitions of equality; equality of process, equality of worth, equality of outcome and equality of opportunity (Burchardt 2006, Equalities Review 2007).
Equality of process, defined as ‘ensuring that people are treated in the same manner in any given situation’ was recognised as an important element of non-discrimination and one that underpinned for example the right to a fair trial but not sufficient to address broader concerns about equality (Equalities Review 2007 p14). Equality of worth, defined as ‘according each individual equal respect’, was also important, but did not necessarily engage with issues of unequal access to resources. Equality of outcome could be ‘interpreted as aiming for everyone to have, for instance, equal amounts of income or wealth, or the same educational attainment’ (Equalities
100
Review 2007 p14). This was easy to measure and possibly the ‘most intuitive idea of equality’ (Burchardt 2006 p7). However it risked ignoring differences in need, individual preferences and individual agency and responsibility. Equality of opportunity could be interpreted as meaning ‘opportunities should depend only on your talents and the efforts you make’ or that ‘ensuring that those circumstances that are beyond an individual’s control should not undermine the opportunity an
individual has to thrive’ (Equalities Review 2007 p15). The review concluded that ‘it would be presumptuous to attempt to settle this theoretical argument once and for all’ but that ‘to ensure that everyone who could help with this task focuses their efforts to the same end’ it was ‘essential to establish an accepted definition that draws on, but overcomes the limitations of, these different interpretations of equality’ (Equalities Review 2007 p15). This should not be based on ‘woolly compromise’ but a consensus based on both academic understandings of equality, international policy and practice and consultation with individual citizens to create a definition which could ‘accommodate the rigorous testing of the intellectual, but also strives to be meaningful and practical to everyone’ (Equalities Review 2007 p15).
The definition of an equal society proposed by the review was
‘An equal society protects and promotes equal, real freedom and substantive opportunity to live in the ways people value and would choose, so that everyone can flourish.
An equal society recognises people’s different needs, situations and goals and removes the barriers that limit what people can do and can be.’
Such a society would recognise: ‘a positive role required of institutions in removing barriers or constraints and making sure that opportunities to flourish are real; that some people may need more and different resources to enjoy genuine freedom and fair access to opportunities;that a life of genuine and valuable choices for each individual leads to a better society for everybody; and that its aim should be to narrow gaps in real opportunities and real freedoms, not by reducing the freedoms of some but by increasing the opportunities of those suffering persistent disadvantage’ (Equalities Review 2007 p16).
101
This definition of equality includes not only ‘equal’ but ‘substantive’ opportunities. Its focus on ‘genuine’ choices reflects a recognition elsewhere in the Review report that simple ‘equal treatment’ is not sufficient to ensure equality. The definition also recognises that not only do different groups have different needs, but that equality can mean different things for different people and that ‘equality does not mean sameness’ (Equalities Review 2007 p16).
In order to measure progress the review suggested a ‘scorecard’ of dimensions of equality, based on recommendations to the review by the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at the London School of Economics (Burchardt 2006 p10, Equalities Review 2007 p125). The Review accepted CASE’s proposal for a
‘capabilities’ based approach, based on the work of Sen (1985). The translation of this approach to a ‘scorecard’ appears to draw on the work of Nussbaum who developed a core set of capabilities (2000), an approach rejected by Sen (2005). However the Review does not engage with this debate, simply referencing Sen as the basis for both the capabilities approach and the scorecard of dimensions of equality. The scorecard itself was based on the recommendations made by CASE combined with focus group and survey research into the priorities set by the public and particular groups experiencing disadvantage. (Equalities Review 2007 p17). The Equalities Review proposed that the score-card be used to measure and monitor progress towards equality, with specific targets and policies developed to address each dimension and that a Public Sector Equality Duty was one of the mechanisms that should be used to address these dimensions.
The proposals for a ‘scorecard’ for measuring progress towards equality were not reflected in any subsequent proposals for a single Equality Act produced by the Government. Nor do they appear to have had much influence on the work of the EHRC. Staff members who had been in post during the review process recalled the scorecard as a temporary enthusiasm of Trevor Phillips, in which he soon lost interest. Other staff recruited after the Equalities Review were unaware of the ‘scorecard approach. However there is considerable overlap between the framing of equality contained within the Equalities Review and that contained in the
Discrimination Law Review particularly in terms of the definition of an equal society and what that would entail.
102