PM should think carefully before removing equality impact assessments

23 Nov 2012 Voices

Woah there Mr Prime Minister! You're going to end equality impact assessments? Think it through, says Belinda Pratten.

David Cameron, Prime Minister. Image credit:Home Office

Woah there Mr Prime Minister! You're going to end equality impact assessments? Think it through, says Belinda Pratten.

All politicians, and particularly Prime Ministers want to 'get things done' - think Tony Blair marching offenders to the cashpoint. This week David Cameron announced that as well as getting things done, he also wants to 'speed things up', by not bothering with consultation or equality impact assessments.

It is interesting that the Prime Minister made this announcement at the CBI, which has in the past been supportive of the Consultation Code.

When the previous government proposed watering down some of the Code’s provisions, business representatives, including the CBI, were as much against these changes as those of us from the voluntary sector. Both sectors then agreed that the 12-week rule, for example, enabled us to consult with our members, to get the views of those who might be implementing the policy and/or those who would be most affected by it. This in turn would help to assess the impact it could have on the frontline, and identify any unintended consequences, or side effects, which might then be addressed before the policy reached the statute book.
 

And that is the point, surely, of both consultation and equality (or environmental) impact assessments (EIAs): identifying, in advance, the likely effectiveness of a particular policy and the potential costs to people and planet. Policy-making will always involve trade-offs between competing needs and interests; difficult decisions have to be made. But it is not unreasonable to expect a government that espouses fairness to at least consider the impact that its policies could have, particularly on those who are already disadvantaged and discriminated against. The alternative, to act now and worry about the consequences later, might be too late for some.

EIAs were introduced precisely because the ‘smart people in Whitehall’ were unable to say what impact government policies had on women, people with disabilities, those from BME communities and other marginalised groups. Expecting us to trust them to do so now smacks a little of the nanny state: we should leave it to them because they know best.

Get rid of the tick box approach by all means, but don’t lose the transparency and accountability that EIAs provide.

The recent PCC elections have again highlighted the apparent apathy and antipathy many people have towards politics and politicians. Some of this seems to be fuelled by a sense that politicians are out of touch and unwilling to listen to people’s views and concerns. Failing to consult or to consider the impact of policies will do nothing to alleviate this. Moreover, by failing to consult, governments may be putting their own reputations at risk.

There has long been a perception in Whitehall (pre-dating this particular government) that consultation is just an excuse for delay and obfuscation. But it doesn’t take too much imagination to suppose that recent incidents, from the forestry fiasco to pastygate, might have been avoided if there had been even the most cursory consultation. As has been said before, uniting National Trust members and those of the Socialist Workers Party is such a rare feat that the Department of Environment might have been expected to have spotted it earlier.

In other words, consultation should be seen as an opportunity, rather than a burden: an opportunity to improve policy and identify problems at an early stage, thereby avoiding embarrassing u-turns later on.

 

More on