M ANIOBRAS GENERALES DE UN REMOLCADOR DE PUERTO

The Stage one equality impact assessment entails a close scrutiny of the relevant policies by the staff of the council, identifying equality gaps and proposing appropriate measures to deal with any identified adverse impact. The Stage one impact assessment is most crucial to the ability of the council to tackle discrimination as it is at this level that the individual staff are expected to demonstrate the relevant competence to undercover the subtleties of disability discrimination. There were three aspects of the stage one assessments that may support a proposition that the process is capable of delivering real and substantive equality outcomes not only for persons with disabilities but also for the other equality strands.

First, it was evident to this study that most of the reports of the stage one assessment were written and presented to the EDP by senior staff of the council, often of or above the position of Officers who should have undergone the council’s competency training on disability awareness and thus could be assumed to possess the relevant skills and competence to deal with the intricacies of disability equality.⁵⁰³ However, this research noted that most of the reports to the Equality and Diversity Panel did not reveal any analysis of the effects of multiple discrimination but simply focussed on the equality impact of policies and practice on the different equality strands.⁵⁰⁴ This may indicate a gap in the council’s equality training which needs to be addressed if the staff are to be able to demonstrate an ability to deal comprehensively with issues of unlawful discrimination. Given the complexity of the single Equality Act, it is important that council staff engaged with equality impact assessments should be fully conversant with the provisions of the Act. This would enable managerial initiatives on equality to be linked to the current anti-discrimination

503 The equality competency training is mandatory to all staff from or above the position of manager. The training is conducted as part of the competency requirements under the Equality Standard for local government.

504 The researcher attended the meetings of the Southwark Equality and Diversity Panel (EDP) between November 2008-November 2009 and witnessed the presentation of the stage 1 and 2 report by the staff of the council. For an analysis of multiple discrimination, see generally S. Hannett, ‘Equality at the Intersections: the Legislative and Judicial Failure to Tackle Multiple Discrimination’ Vol.23 No. 1 OJLS 2003. PP.65-86. Also, for the intersection between Disability and Age, see S. Hannett, ‘Equality at the Intersections: the Legislative and Judicial Failure to Tackle Multiple Discrimination’ Vol.23 No. 1 OJLS 2003. PP.65-86.

194

framework and thus minimise the possibility of the council’s equality strategies being derailed by claims of unlawful discrimination.

Second, it was clear from the reports of the stage one assessments that there is a greater use of evidence, both qualitative and quantitative in the conduct of impact assessments by the staff of the council in order to identify any negative or positive impacts of the policies and how the negative impacts could be mitigated while the positive ones improved upon. The use of evidence in the conduct of impact assessments is a central requirement of the Specific duty and its importance is emphasised in the Southwark council’s Guide to carrying out impact assessments which stresses the need of obtaining baseline evidence on discrimination and equality across all the functions of the council. This is an important feature of the conduct of equality impact assessments by the staff of Southwark council, not least because it enables the staff to avoid wasting time developing equality initiatives which are outdated and irrelevant to the circumstances of persons with disabilities. Also, the council’s arrangements for conducting impact assessments might be used to manage the constant technological changes that may potentially disadvantage persons with disabilities with regards to the delivery of services. This would counteract a merely reactive stance to the council’s duty to make reasonable adjustments and thus better plug it to the substantive equality paradigm.

Third, the depth of knowledge exhibited in the reports and the skill and care with which they were prepared differed between the staff. This may indicate the different degrees of staff competency and seriousness applied by the staff to the conduct of impact assessments and the preparation of the reports to the EDP. The conduct of impact assessments is a legal duty which must be performed conscientiously and with the relevant degree of seriousness if the council is to avoid its policies being challenged through lengthy and costly judicial review process.⁵⁰⁵ Mainstreaming equality is not only about delivering equality outcomes but is also about the quality of the decision-making process. A stage 1 report to the EDP is mandatory where the particular service is rated as medium or high.

505 R (Chavda) v Harrow LBC [2007] EWHC 3064 (Admin); R v Birmingham City Council and M, G and H v Birmingham City Council (co-joint appeals) Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 1147 (Admin).

195 1.3.2 The Stage Two Impact Assessment Report

The second stage in the Southwark EQIAS process involves building on the stage 1 outcomes, including any feedback from the EDP and the development and implementation of an action plan to address the various equality gaps identified in the relevant policy or function.⁵⁰⁶ This research studied some stage 2 impact assessment reports and witnessed their presentation to the EDP by the staff of the council. Some interesting data emerged from the study which may be important in establishing the link between the conduct of EQIAs and the delivery of substantive equality for persons with a disability by Southwark council. first, the stage 2 reports were much more detailed, contained more information and at times the evidence used were more robust. This may indicate that the two stage assessment process enables the staff to improve on the depth and scope of the scrutiny of the council’s policies and to incorporate any relevant suggestions of the EDP in to their report. Such a high degree of scrutiny could only be beneficial rather than detrimental to the council’s agenda to eliminate discrimination and promote disability equality.

Second, a recurrent problem with the stage 2 assessment was the frequent failure of the staff of the council to present their reports on the days allocated to them by the social policy officers who are charged with coordinating the EDP. The reason often advanced by the failing officers was that they were caught up by other more important official duties, indicating that issues of equality may be considered as less important than other duties of the council. Since the stage 2 report to the EDP are not mandatory, compliance was usually voluntary. This means that the stage 2 reports were likely to be presented to the EDP for independent scrutiny only when the work schedule of the presenting officer permits and there is the necessary individual goodwill. In the absence of these conditions, stage 2 reports to the EDP tended, at best, to be sporadic and, at worst, not to take place at all.

Third, a persistent complain of the EDP panellists was that they were not given the opportunity to know if their contributions to the stage two staff impact assessments reports were taken on bored because the were no arrangements to ensure that the panel

506 See generally Equalities Scheme 2005-08, Annex 4 supra no.485

196

is informed of any actions after the stage two reports are presented by the staff.⁵⁰⁷ This may indicate a frustration with a process which is not only supposed to be inclusive but also accountable and transparent. The requirement of participation and the demands for more transparency and accountability could be seen as outcomes of a regulatory framework which seeks to empower the marginalised and disadvantaged in the community with regard to the way services are delivered and decisions are made. Yet, the relatio nship bet ween the demand f or m ore tran sparenc y and accountability on the one hand and the empowerment of persons with disabilities through participation on the other might not be one of cause and effect but are both outcomes of the shift in the balance of trust between the professionals of our public authorities and persons with disabilities. In this respect, the concept of participatory empowerment may itself be the solution to problems of transparency and accountability that are associated with our public authorities.⁵⁰⁸