Discrepancies in powers – of Commission and underlying legislation

2. 1. support for individuals, including casework, conciliation, and local advice services.Facilitator: Paul Pier Louis, CRE Respondent: Valerie Coleman, Citizens Advice • A programme to develop and fund local collaborative networks of organisations, and capacity building for advice and support • Give CEHR discretion to support individual cases in addition to the proposed criteria, while seeking to achieve strategic objectives • A CEHR training and accreditation scheme for advice providers • Need to address absence of support on GFS for new strands, through conciliation services, individual advice, good practice guidance and human rights enforcement

3. 2a. promotion and enforcement in the public and voluntary sectorsFacilitator: Frances Butler, ippr Respondent: Amor Jones, Amicus • Discrepancies in powers – of Commission and underlying legislation • Currently too many voices and schemes – hard to communicate benefits – a clear message required • CEHR should adopt a promotional role which should appeal to the values of organisations – but vital this is backed up with a range of effective enforcement mechanisms • Engagement with stakeholders – national, regional, local – recognition of differences and role of VCS at each level because it includes strand-specific expertise • Working partnerships with inspectorates - in order to mainstream CEHR specific aims • Adequate resources vital for CEHR, wider public sector and voluntary sector • Government is ultimately still responsible – CEHR is an enabler

4. 2b. promotion and enforcement in the public and voluntary sectorsFacilitator: Chitra Karve, CRE Respondent: Claire McNab, Press for Change • Need commitment to early SEA (significant feeling that SEA should precede CEHR); • CEHR should have major role in proposing and challenging legislation; • As CEHR cannot do everything, needs to establish mechanisms for working with public bodies (including inspectorates) and voluntary sector etc, eg on delivery and enforcement; • Resourcing and funding for equality and HR work important throughout public sector (not just for CEHR).

5. 3. Promotion and enforcement in the private sectorFacilitator: Andrea Murray, EOC. Respondent: Neil Bentley, CBI • To build a positive partnership between the CEHR and the private sector, it is vital to clarify the vision, expectations, roles and standards of service • Clarity and consistency on the role of partners especially on 1 to 1 advice and who delivers it, to what level • Explore use of procurement and contracting mechanisms to promote equality in the private and voluntary sectors • Recognising differences between SMEs and bigger businesses • Articulating the business case and understanding what influences and drives good practice in the private sector

6. 4. Promoting good relationsFacilitator: Alexander Goldberg, Board of Deputies of British Jews Respondent: Alan Wardle, Stonewall • Inclusive – not “us and them” • Education – formal and informal • Enforcement – as important as promotion • Resources – perennial question...!

7. 5. Governance and participation including devolutionRespondent: Bob Benson, DRC, Facilitator: Francesca Klug, LSE • Board responsible for governance rather than representation but reflection, through many routes, is essential (JCHR wording on composition on board more appropriate) • The board should have power to create own committees which could reflect strand interests as well as other concerns. Though there was a view that strand specific committees should be mandatory. • Encouraging participation through the way officers work and as well as through committees. Regional presence – stronger presence to develop regional strategies and deliver effectively and linking to participatory structures • Independence – 2 views. One advantages in following proposals in White Paper as an NDPB another view was that this could be compromised and there was a chance for fresh thinking. Unanimity on responsibility to Parliament and to appropriate regional and devolved bodies • Accepting proposals around devolution wanting much more clairty around autonomy and need for S&W work would feedback to GB strategies

8. 6. Centres of excellence: research, performance measures and monitoringFacilitator: Patrick Grattan, TAENRespondent: Loraine Martins, Audit Commission • More explicit focus on measurement which will include measurement of outcomes, definitions of success, will create a robust centre of excellence – we must do this to understand the extent to which we have achieved the vision for the CEHR • Build on the good practices and strengths of the current Commissions and learn lessons from areas of weakness • Emphasis on access – engagement with a broad range of stakeholders who can feed in to the monitoring, analysis, bench-marking and research – taking account of local and regional factors – and taking account of bodies such as inspectorates/regulators, VCS organisations, data gathering agencies etc • CEHR to have a role in setting standards – e.g. training, leadership, empowering individuals to become agents of change • CEHR needs clarity around the different levels of monitoring – CEHR’s own performance, effect of legislation/Government agenda, impact on society/communities, impact on individual public/private bodies

9. 7. priorities for the first 3 years 2007-2010.Facilitator: Katie Ghose, Age ConcernRespondent: Michelynn Lafleche, Runnymede Trust • Work to establish the CEHR’s priorities for its first three years must start now • Establish governance arrangements that presume a cross-strand basis, but also reflect the needs of specific communities and functions • Identify strategic partners to deliver equality and human rights, so that CEHR operates effectively in all regions, strands and subjects • Develop a strong evidence base from which to determine its strategic approach and evaluate progress • Deliver realistic and tangible outcomes to individuals from day one • Produce consistent and high quality information, eg through guidance, to prepare individuals and organisations for a step change • Undertake strategic enforcement activities to establish its credibility

10. 8a. Run up to the CEHRFacilitator: Sam Mercer, Employers’ Forum on AgeRespondent: Mohammed Aziz, MCB • Need support for new strands during interim period, especially on continuity of funding until vesting day; • Transition Commission should have transition commissioners from the new strands (but should not be seen as mere spokespersons), who should be resourced during the transition; need openness in appointment of steering board and transition commissioners; • Need good change management in transition to CEHR, especially to avoid loss of good people from existing Commissions; • Transition Commission needs to gain expertise on new strands rapidly; • Voluntary sector, interest groups, representative bodies etc need help in adjusting the relationship with the CEHR.

11. 8b. Run up to the CEHRFacilitator: Myra White, DRC Transition • Support for new strands • Need for sustained and early advice on new strands, starting now and capacity-building front line providers via funded collaborative networks (shadow body and other providers i.e. acas) • needs CEHR to provide leadership, but concerns remain on over-stretching the shadow body • Legislative arrangements • As explicit as possible on face of bill but scope for change by regulation where necessary • Need to move quickly towards a SEA – begin work immediately • Needs ownership from public, business and voluntary and community sector • Need to explore potential of designated equality tribunals