Questions for the council: Not much about equality

We have serious concerns about the quality of the Equality Analysis in the 2023 Cabinet Report.

The 2010 Equality Act, section 149, 1(b) states that:

“1. A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to: b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”

Also, Section 149 of the said act, point 3, provides that:

• “3. Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—
  • a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;
  • b) take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;

c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low”.

Within that framework, we understand that the Equality Act “does not require public authorities to carry out EIAs”. Yet “the case law indicates that some form of documentary evidence of compliance with the PSED [Public Sector Equality Duty] is valuable to public authorities”. EIA is currently considered one way “for a public authority to demonstrate compliance with the PSED”.[1]

According to the 2015 Equality and Human Rights Commission’s guidance for decision-makers, Making Fair Financial Decisions, public authorities should ensure that their decision include “a consideration of the actions that would help to avoid or mitigate any impacts on particular protected characteristics” (p.4). Also public authorities should “make the decision-making process more transparent: a process which involves those likely to be affected by the policy, and which is based on evidence, is much more open and transparent”.

We regret that BCC’s failure to fulfil its duty to consult at early stages of the process, and the poor quality of the Equality Analysis, fall short of meeting the provisions of the 2010 Equality Act and the guidance of the 2015 Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Our observations about statements in the Equality Analysis are:

• While talking about the elderly, the Equality Analysis states that the low percentage of older people in the area is proof of no adverse impact. Yet, in the same paragraph, the justification for this observation is the chilling and concerning consideration that the low percentage of the elderly in the area is a result of “the fact that black and ethnic minority groups typically have a lower life expectancy than White British groups”.

• The document points out that “older residents may have more difficulty securing a mortgage should they wish to move elsewhere” and that “there could be a specific impact on emotional wellbeing of older residents and those who have lived on the estate a long time, who are more impacted upon by the change”. Yet, the analysis does not have any specific measure to deal with such financial and emotional impacts. The only provision is for re-housing officers who provide relevant information and BCC communication about the CPO process.

• The document states that “it is possible that individuals with disabilities may feel have less agency over the change happening to the area, especially if they are being relocated”. “To mitigate against this”, the analysis states, “communication will be open and transparent from the start”. We regret to say that communication has not been, neither transparent, nor accurate from the get-go.

• We believe that the analysis fails to recognise that pregnant women might be severely impacted by the process, especially if their houses are dismantled during the pregnancy period.

• The document states that the main ethnic groups in the area are Black African (31.1%) and Black Caribbean (12.1%), well above the Birmingham averages of 5.8% and 3.9%, respectively. The analysis also recognises that “the proposals will therefore have a greater impact on the Black community in comparison to other races, but this is likely to be both positive overall”. We fail to understand the explanation and justification for this claim of positive impact specific to Black communities. The rest of the report mentions that new community spaces, better education facilities and improved connectivity will result in an improvement in the neighbourhood. Yet, we fail to understand the specific measures that have been put into place to mitigate impact on Black communities. This is even more relevant if we consider that point 3.a in this report raises serious concerns about whether the existing community will be able to return in the area to benefit from these changes.

• We are concerned by the complete lack of early engagement and consideration for the existing religious communities of Ladywood. The document states that “the proposals do include the loss of some religious buildings. The impact of the loss of these buildings will be mitigated against, to some extent, by the provision of secular community buildings”. While the document states the officers will consult and engage with those operating religious buildings, we are extremely concerned that religious communities have not been involved previously in the design of this proposal. This lack of prior consultation and engagement is a serious breach of the “due regard” public authorities should have towards groups and individuals protected characteristics, as spelled in the Equality Act 2010, section 149, and the 2012 Public Sector Equality Duty.

Overall, we regret to note that the Equality Analysis is severely constrained by its concern with proving that the scheme has positive outcomes despite the range of significant negative social-economic impacts that, by the Analysis’s own admission, residents will face.

The Equality Assessment states:

“Whilst the rehoming of communities will have some negative social-economic impacts in the short term, it is considered that on balance in the long term there will be an overall positive impact on the social-economics of the area and a positive outcome for the Ladywood Community.”

BCC’s failure in its duty to consult while making difficult funding decisions, as provided by the 2015 Best Value Statutory Guidance, the lack of transparency in the methodology and arguments being used in its human rights considerations, the circularity and self-reinforcing argumentation of the scheme’s Equality Assessment, and notably, the high likelihood that the existing community of Ladywood will be unable to enjoy the claimed benefits of the regeneration, lead us to question the validity of BCC’s evaluation of the balance of short-term impacts and long-term benefits.

---

[1] Pyper, D. (2020). The public sector equality duty and equality impact assessments. Briefing Paper, 6591. House of Commons Library, p.24