GEO POLICY EQUALITY STATEMENT

1. THE PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITY DUTY: PRACTICAL STRATEGIES IN A SPECIFIC CASELouise WhitfieldPierce Glynn 19 January 2012

2. GEO POLICY EQUALITY STATEMENT • Scheme for funding discrimination advice and casework, administered by EHRC • GEO decide (in early 2011) to take scheme away from EHRC and set up enhanced helpline • No decision on funding advice and casework • GEO propose not to fund in future; early EIA suggests no adverse impact • Consult on this: consultation closes mid-June 2011

3. Decision? • Helpline service spec published, no decision on advice, no new EIA • Provider networks raise concerns • Pierce Glynn press for decision, disclosure etc • GEO dodge the issue – announcement due late November • GEO write on 12/12/11 and disclose “policy equality statement”

4. KEY POINTS TO START WITH • Date of document: does it predate final decision? • Any updates/earlier versions you need to see? • What is the timeline for the decision-making? • What policies/decisions does it cover? • See page 3 re “looking at two options” • Also on page 3: “we have updated this paper” • Reference on page 4 to earlier EIAs

5. WHAT’S THE EVIDENCE BASE? • Engagement events (p.4 and annex A) • Responses to consultation (p.5 and annex B) • Sample of data • “data...not available”; not possible to estimate how many clients supported; “analysis...most reliable and robust that can be carried out using the information available” [footnote 1, p.5] • “any findings must be treated with caution”

6. DOES THE DOCUMENT MAKE SENSE? • Should be written in accessible language and easy to understand • See page 4 “options” – reference to “Biii) below” – but there is no Biii) • Also, GEO had already decided on Aiii) (enhanced helpline) back in February 2011, so unclear how they are meeting duty to assess impact on equality if decision already taken

7. DO THE CONCLUSIONS MAKE SENSE?PART 1 • Remember the proposal is to take away advice services targetted at the protected groups • See table on pages 8 to 10 • Impact on eliminating discrimination etc: “neutral” • Impact on advancing equality of opportunity: “positive” • Impact on fostering good relations: “positive”

8. DO THE CONCLUSIONS MAKE SENSE?PART 2 • See table on page 10-11: impact on people with protected characteristic • “negligible – very few clients with age-based cases” etc • Any mitigation – “N/A” • Flaws in analysis • Gaps in information

9. YOUR RESPONSE? • Prepare critical analysis of document using resources: s.149 wording, guidance etc • Focus on evidence and conclusions • Keep big picture and impact on equality in mind • What do you say public authority should have done instead and what should they do now? • What’s your mandate?

10. Legal challenge? • Providers responded to consultationraising equality impact concerns • Does flawed ‘policy equality statement’ equal breach of PSED? • Relevance, proportionality and timing • Is mitigation enough to get GEO off the hook? • Can they just say there’s no money? • Users losing services can bring challenge • Timing is everything...

11. THE PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITY DUTY: PRACTICAL STRATEGIES IN A SPECIFIC CASELouise WhitfieldPierce Glynn 19 January 2012