The Government is emphasising the business benefits of the new legislation. In a press release (GEO: issued on 3rd July) it notes that:

‘The Equality Act brings together nine separate pieces of legislation into one single Act, simplifying the law and reducing the burden on businesses by making it easier for firms to comply with discrimination law.

The first wave of implementation of the Equality Act will go ahead to the planned October timetable following the publication of the first Commencement Order in Parliament next week. This will pave the way for the implementation of landmark provisions to protect disabled people from discrimination and tackle the gender pay gap.’

The Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, Teresa May, said

‘By making the law easier to understand, the Equality Act will help businesses treat staff fairly and meet the needs of a diverse customer base… Implementing the Equality Act to the planned timetable makes clear our commitment to equality. A successful economy needs the full participation of all its citizens and we are committed to implementing the Act in the best way for business.’

In conjunction with this statement, the GEO has published, along with the British Chambers of Commerce, the Equality and Diversity Forum and Citizens Advice, summary guides to support the implementation of the Act.

These are thankfully short, concise and clear: a nice change from what had gone before See:

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/media/press_releases/government_equalities_office_s.aspx

Residents and local business owners argued that the redevelopment would increase business rents making them unaffordable to local small businesses. Additionally the plans did not include sufficient affordable housing which would mean residents would be forced to move away from their communities. The public sector race equality duty came into play because the majority of the businesses and flats affected by the scheme are occupied by black and other ethnic minority people.

The Court of Appeal judge said that ‘the duty to have due regard (to the statutory equality duty) involves a conscious approach and state of mind which had not been demonstrated in the case in hand. The Council had not focussed on the specific statutory considerations and analysed the material before it with these considerations in mind’

In other words the Council had not carried out an adequate equality impact assessment of the proposed development and as a result the planning permission has been revoked so it’s back to the drawing board.

This ruling supports our view that the discipline of Equality Impact Assessment will survive the Equality Act 2010. It will continue to be an essential tool and a way for public authorities to demonstrate that they have analysed and taken account of evidence of equality impact when making decisions that will change people’s lives.
See
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/703.html

On taking up her appointment, Lynne has already expressed her disappointment about the lack of women represented in the higher echelons of the new Government.

Each of the coalition parties has a number of equality priorities, reflected in their manifestos, and they include:

Conservatives: One of the most interesting parts of the Conservative equality agenda includes the potential requirement for a ‘long list’ of directorship appointments to include a 50% tally of female candidates. Other commitments include:

• Extend right to request flexible working to all parents of children up to 18 and all public sector workers.
• Allow both parents to take parental leave at the same time.
• Compulsory pay audit for employers losing gender pay discrimination employment tribunal cases.
• Recognise civil partnerships in the tax system; consider civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.
• Historic convictions for consensual gay sex with somebody 16 and over should be ‘spent’.
• Tackle homophobic bullying.

Liberal Democrats:

• Tackle gender, sexuality, age, race, religion or disability discrimination.
• Require name-blind job applications to reduce sex and race discrimination.
• Introduce fair pay audits for firms with more than 100 workers.
• Public companies to declare remuneration of £200,000 a year or more.
• Extend the right to request flexible working to all employees.
• Seek to extend period of shared parental leave to up to 18 months
• Require better recording of hate crimes against disabled, homeless, sexual and transgender people.
• Confront homophobic bullying.

The proportion of Board positions for women fell to 32.6% last year, compared with 37.5% in 2004. The Treasury, for example, was one of the poorest performing departments, with only four of the twenty five people that the department appointed to public bodies being women. This was replicated in other departments, including, for example, at the Department for Innovation and the Export Credit Guarantee Department, that appointed women to fewer than a fifth of Board positions.

Accusations have been made against Harriet Harman that she does not practise what she preaches. Lord Oakshott, Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, said:

‘This is rank hypocrisy – how dare Harriet Harman lecture the country on diversity when a Whitehall Old Boys Club packs more and more men onto public Boards?’

At the same time as a number of women within public bodies is reducing, the picture continues to be poor in other sectors. For example, the number of women on FTSE 100 Boards continues to remain at 12%, according to the latest Bellwether Annual Report from Cranfield University School of Management.

This is a dismal picture. Despite all the initiatives and press releases produced on the subject by the current Government over recent years, the position seems to have got worse rather than better. Does this area therefore need a new re-think, with positive action initiatives being taken, as in countries such as Norway and Spain; or will the various approaches being developed by Government start to bear fruit soon?

The approach

Why are there so many statutory obligations around diversity, and none around business performance?

Of course there are many laws relating to contracts and employment, but none to enforce the most basic obligation on all organisations: the requirement to perform. Clearly, no legislation is needed: high performance is more rewarding than low performance, and success is better than failure.

If we established a clear and direct link between increased diversity and increased performance, how many regulations would we need around diversity?

The need for compliance is very effective at driving changes in behaviour, but its real objective is to change attitudes. The fact is that compliance alone takes a long time to have any impact on the cultural mindset.

There is a much faster way to change our mindset. It’s called revelation: the sudden insight that there is another way to see diversity and a compelling reason to embrace it. It is the revelation that when we embrace diversity we open ourselves to the full potential of the people we work with, the customers we work for, the communities we serve, and ourselves.

The revelation is that diversity drives performance.

The Pegasus Programme

The Pegasus Programme is designed to change the mindset around diversity and link it directly to performance, by focusing on a simple, powerful principle: there is no difference between the limiting beliefs that flourish around diversity, and the limiting beliefs that hold back individual and team performance.

By targeting this mindset and these limiting beliefs, Pegasus aims to build an organisational culture that fully embraces diversity, by rewarding it with increased individual and team performance.

In this way, the performance imperative takes over from the need for compliance, because diversity becomes a self-rewarding strategy.

Pegasus treats diversity as a cultural gear lever with three positions:

Reverse (D-Minus)
Neutral (D-Compliant)
Forward (D-Plus)

A D-Plus organisation is not only compliant with its statutory obligations, it has a D-Plus mindset that uses diversity to drive performance. The goal of Pegasus is to help organisations create a D-Plus mindset and a high-performance D-plus culture.

Compliance, Systems, Performance

The Pegasus Programme has three interlinked strands – Legal, Systems and Performance – each of them delivered by specialists in the field. With each of these strands the first stage is diagnostic, to understand where your organisation is today; the second is to build a programme that will take you into D-Plus.

1. D-Plus Legal Framework: ensures that you are not only legally compliant, avoiding potentially expensive claims and negative publicity, but that your legal framework supports a D-Plus mindset and culture.

2. D-Plus Systems and Processes: ensures that D-Plus systems are in place, that staff understand the value of diversity to the organisation, and that they are trained to use tools and processes that support a D-Plus mindset and culture.

3. D-Plus Mindset and Performance: reduces the limiting beliefs around diversity with a structured programme of teamwork and coaching, and uses this process to build a D-Plus mindset and to increase individual and team performance.

These three strands work together to develop and consolidate a D-Plus culture, in which diversity is embraced, valued and actively managed as a performance driver. The benefits delivered by such a culture include:

• A richer talent pool
• Greater staff engagement
• More customers, new markets
• Increased innovation
• Better teamwork, increased trust
• More effective performance management
• Improved outcomes / increased profitability

Explore The Pegasus Programme: Introductory Workshop

Pegasus is a structured framework designed to generate tailored solutions. Please ask us to explain in more detail how it works, and how it could work for you.

We will be pleased to run an introductory presentation and workshop, without charge, to enable you to introduce the concept to your colleagues. Also please contact us if you want any further information: Becky King: beckyking@mdaglobal.net T: 01986 895604

The Pegasus Team

The Pegasus Team is made up of three organisations that have pooled their extensive knowledge and experience to develop the Pegasus Programme. They include us, MDA Global, along with DLA Piper and One to One Coaches.

DLA Piper: is a leading international law firm with over 3,500 lawyers in 65 offices across the world. In the UK it includes the employment team who specialise in the management and organisation of people resources. Integral to this is their work on diversity. The team have over 90 lawyers and consultants, and is one of the largest groups in the UK, with further resources extending across the world in all major jurisdictions.

One to One Coaches: specialises in the performance coaching of business teams, with a unique two-stage programme of individual coaching, teamwork, and a self-managed performance system. Firstly, it helps people to connect their personal goals more effectively with their job, their team, and the goals of their organisation. Then it helps them to work on the skills that will deliver their goals.

Go to our links if you would like more information about these organisations.

Samir’s argument is that the real problem in the UK now is not so much racism but an underclass of cultural ‘clones’. He acknowledges that there are still problems, for example, some ethnic minority groups have worse educational results, but he also highlights positive changes that have occurred over recent years. For example changes to workplace profiles that are now more diverse; the success stories of black and ethnic minority entrepreneurs, and the range of ethnic groups now on the Sunday Times rich list.

He also points out for example, that studies into gang violence in Britain have shown that, unlike the US, there is no ethnicity factor. The racial make-up of gangs in the UK reflects that of the city where the gang is based: so ‘if a version of the American TV series ‘The Wire’ was based in Britain, then the colour of their skin would not be a factor.’

However, he says he sees the real problem now is in terms of cultural ‘cloning’. No longer is recruitment about race discrimination, but the human tendency to recruit in one’s own image:

‘Recruitment, instead of being about picking the best people, becomes a process of finding people like the ones already there. The overwhelming need for a kind of cultural comfort blanket takes precedence over every other consideration – and rules out those whose backgrounds don’t quite fit. This is what a 21st Century Equalities Commission should have in its sights.. Cultural cloning is, in my opinion, the main source of discrimination in Britain today.’

Such cloning will impact in terms of race, but also a whole range of other areas, including class, your ‘look’, your politics: are you right wing?, and even your style. Samir’s article is food for thought, and moves on this agenda, which has so often been bogged down in old fashioned orthodoxies; dated ideas of social engineering, and stereotypes that belong to the 70s and 80s, not now in 2009. Check out the article in the Spectator.

On the other hand, there is now a fight back from some influential conservatives. These include Jesse Norman, the former Shadow Cabinet Adviser, who is a Tory Parliamentary candidate; and Peter Oborne, journalist and leading commentator (he is a Daily Mail columnist). They argue in a pamphlet published by Liberty, the Human Rights Group, that the approach being taken is completely misguided.

Oborne says:

‘Like many conservatives, I was sceptical of the Human Rights Act until I read it and started to think about it. It soon became clear that it was a near perfect expression of Tory values.’

Norman comments:

‘Astonishing as it may seem, the Human Rights Act is a thoroughly conservative document. Its rights were inspired by Sir Winston Churchill and drafted by conservative politicians. It is conservative in its substance and operation. It is time now for the Conservative Party to reclaim this legacy.’

They expand on their arguments in ‘Churchill’s Legacy: The Conservative case for the Human Rights Act’, available from Liberty.

For their part Liberty has launched a campaign to defend the Human Rights Act called ‘Common Values’, with a lively debate recently taking place at a fringe meeting at the Conservative conference.

Go to the Liberty and Conservative web sites for more information on what promises to be a protracted and increasingly bitter area of debate.

 Overall, research carried out in the Commissions’ Finance Sector Enquiry showed that more than 8 out of 10 women are paid lower salaries when starting jobs than men.  Part of the pattern behind this suggests that age may be a factor, as an unusually high proportion of women in the sector fall into the 25-39 age group: the age at which women tend to have childcare responsibilities.

 The differential performance gap in pay is dramatically revealed in some of the data collected, which showed that women employees earned an average of £2,875 in annual performance related pay, compared to an average of £14,554 for men.  There was also a gap of 39% in pay between men and women, rising to 40% for total earnings, taking into account performance related pay, bonuses and overtime.

 Even taking account of childcare and caring commitments that can put women at a disadvantage, along with the nature of the jobs held by men and women in the City, this is still a startlingly huge difference.

 It is difficult to see how such a large differential can be explained or justified.  This is particularly the case in the significant differentials between starting salaries for men and women.

 We have already seen some big tribunal cases where women have successfully taken cases in relation to bonuses, and their receiving much smaller amounts.  Key here is the question of openness and transparency, with few employees usually knowing what each other earns in individual companies.

  This could change, with the EHRC potentially using its legal powers to open this area up once and for all.  The Chairman, Trevor Phillips, has said:

 ‘What we can do if we want to is start comparing individual institutions to published information.  We can compel them to give us information which will reveal what is going on inside their companies.  Fines are not a problem for these companies.  It is illumination they dislike.’

 (Quoted in the Sunday Times 6-09-09)

 Nerves may be jangling in the City with such an eventuality.

This seems to be a useful intervention as it provides some facts in the face of propaganda from organisations like the BNP.  However, I had some concerns when listening to the Radio 4 Today programme and an interview carried out with someone from the EHRC. They didn’t seem to know too much about housing allocations and I wasn’t sure that the points they made were well founded.

However, putting that aside, this report being published at this time is good news for the EHRC.  This organisation seems to have done very little since it came into existence over two years ago, and we have learned that as an organisation it has been torn apart with dissention, and poor calibre leadership. We also know that there are a number of internal cases being taken to tribunal.  Here’s hoping that there are better times ahead for the EHRC: its work is potentially very important, particularly in respect of its extensive legal powers.