The Equal Opportunities Commission—Ten Years On
| Author | Vera Sacks |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1986.tb01704.x |
| Published date | 01 September 1986 |
| Date | 01 September 1986 |
THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION-
TEN YEARS ON
INTRODUC~ON
THE
Equal Opportunities Commission (E.O.C.) has been in
existence for
10
years. This review of its work seeks primarily to
evaluate three of the main criticisms which have been made of the
way in which it operates. The first criticism is that the E.O.C. has
failed to achieve an effective decision-making strategy, in part due
to the composition of the Commission as representative
of
various
interest groups rather than as an agency committed to the
improvement of equal opportunities. The second criticism is that
the E.O.C. has failed to make adequate use of its law enforcement
powers, allowing its work to be determined largely by individual
complaints rather than the original aim
of
strategic law enforcement
in particular through formal investigations. The third criticism is
that the E.O.C. has failed to present itself as the leading promoter
of
equal opportunities. Instead it has tended to preserve a low
profile and go for “safe” options in line with the low priority given
to women’s rights by the Conservative government. In assessing
the validity
of
these criticisms this article also seeks to suggest ways
in which the Commission could utilise its resources and focus its
activities more effectively.
PART
I:
THE ORGANISATION
OF
THE
COMMISSION
1.
Composition, Organisation and Policy Making
The effectiveness of the E.O.C., as with any organisation, is
crucially dependent on the careful formulation of policy and
strategy. This provides a means of ensuring that internal policies
and objectives are consistent with each other and with overall
organisational policy. In the case of the E.O.C., a statutory body
set up under the Sex Discrimination Act
1975,’
those responsible
for policy making are the Commissioners who are appointed by the
Home Secretary. Had the Government stuck to its initial intention
to appoint Commissioners “from persons with a wide range of
relevant knowledge and experience”’ an effective body of
Commissioners might have emerged. During the passage of the Bill
’
s.53
lays down that the duties
of
the Commission, which consists
of
between
8-15
persons, are (a) to work towards the elimination
of
discrimination, (b) to promote
equality
of
opportunity between men and women generally, and (c) to keep under review
the workings
of
this Act and the Equal Pay Act and, when they are
so
required by the
Secretary
of
State
or
otherwise think it necessary, draw up and submit to the Secretary
of
State proposals
for
amending them. These are the same duties cast on the C.R.E. except
that, in addition, the C.R.E. under (b) above have a duty to promote
good
relations
between racial
groups,
and may assist other organisations who are concerned with this
task.
560
Cmnd.
5724 (1974)
para.
108.
SEFT.
19861
THE
EQUAL
OPPORTUNITIES
COMMISSION
561
through Parliament the Government undertook to appoint
six
of
the Commissioners from the two sides of industry3 and this has
been done, but, in the main, the relevant experience
of
discriminatory practices has been noticeably lacking in those
appointed4 with the result that the top policy making body of the
E.O.C. is composed of a mixed bag of individuals whose different
economic and political interests “means that consensus is the order
of the day and a consensus between such diverse interests does not
produce courageous or dynamic action ‘but passionate caution’
instead.”’ It has also been alleged that as industry has no interest
in promoting real equality of opportunity for women, there is an
unspoken collusion between representatives
of
industry and labour
not to “rock the boat
,”
by interfering with free collective bargaining
and the “natural” order
of
industrial relations.
One of the reasons for the lack of clear policy leading to a
more successful equality strategy, therefore, is the paucity of
knowledgeable feminists on the Commission.
Jo
Richardson foresaw
precisely this outcome when, during the Standing Committee
proceedings, she said:
“Peo le having ex erience in the sphere of emplo ment have
and roblems of women workers.
If
they had done there
woulx have been less need for the Bill.
I
believe that what is
needed is not
so
much experience in the sphere of employment,
or in any other sphere in that particular sense, but ex erience
of discrimination. More imEortant, there shoulc? be a
commitment to its eradication.
The Government has been able to appoint non-experts and avoid
appointing committed feminists because it does not have to satisfy
any civil rights or feminist lobby. Moreover the British system of
public appointments makes it extremely difficult for any lobby
which the Government wishes to ignore to make its views felt.’
not s%own themserves to have much awareness
o
B
the needs
House of Commons O.R. Standing Committee B. May
13, 1975
col.
338
and
339.
Instead most of the Commissioners represent some special interest but with some
knowledge of women’s particular concerns. The Commissioners are: Lady Beryl Platt-
ex-Chairman (Education Committee) of Essex C.C.; June O’Dell--ex-President
of
the
Association of Business and Professional Women and an estate agent; Rosemary Brown-
media representative; James Dunlop-CB.1. appointee from United Biscuits; Dennis
Guereca-C.B.1. appointee from Dunlop; Diana Rookledge-C.B.1. appointee from
Marks
&
Spencer; Terry Marsland-T.U.C. appointee from Union of Tobacco Workers;
Lady Muriel Turner-T.U.C. appointee from A.S.T.M.S.; Pat Turner-T.U.C. appointee
from G.M.B.A.T.U.; Esme Walker-Scottish
representative-chairoman
of the Scottish
Consumer Council; Professor Gillian Howell-Welsh representative (academic); Kenneth
Boardman-Headteacher; Andrew Simpkin-Lawyer but with no special expertise
on
discrimination.
Christine Jackson, “Policies and Implementation of Anti-discrimination Strategies,”
Schmid and Weitzel (eds.), in
Sex
Discrimination
and
Eqwl
Opporrunify (1984).
House of Commons O.R. Standing Committee B, May
13, 1975
Col.
337.
’
Meehan,
Women’s Rights
at
Work (1985),
Chap.
4,
compares the American Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission with
our
E.O.C. She writes of the American
agency: “By the middle of the
1970s,
the E.E.O.C. was in the hands
of
leaders
committed to expanding rather than eroding equal opportunity policies” (p.140). This is
clearly not true in Britai-either the Government
nor
the Commissioners have this
kind of thrusting stance. See, too, Chaps.
5
and
6
on
the subject of the political
environment which affects Quangos.
A.
Barker,
Qwngos in
Britain
(1982),
p.180
comments: “The main drawback to the present system is
.
. .
the avoidance of risk which
leads to the unimaginative and repetitive appointment of the same safe names.’’
562
THE MODERN LAW REVIEW
[Vol.
49
The E.O.C. is organised under five functional managers, their
sections being legal, employment, goods services and facilities,
education, and researcWpolicy co-ordination. There is also a
publicity section.8 The Sex Discrimination Act did not prescribe
any particular organisational structure and this had to be decided
at its inception by an inexperienced management team. Since the
E.O.C.
is a rare bird among British quangos in terms of its range
of
powers (administrative, legislative, judicial, advisory) it had
no
model. Without recounting the story of the muddle of the early
years9 it might have been hoped that, with the passage of time an
effective organisation and decision making mechanism would have
emerged, but this does not appear to be the case. There
is evidence that the division of responsibilities between the
Commissioners and the senior management has not been effectively
defined.
In
the early years, due to high expectations and inexperience,
the Commission was not well managed which meant that many
management problems had to be dealt with by the Commissioners.
One ex-Commissioner has commented to the writer that, during
her period
(1978-82),
the Commissioners were continually discussing
internal dissension and rarely matters of policy. The method of
setting priorities deserves scrutiny.
In
paragraph
2
of their
1984
Annual Report the following statement is made: “in the chapters
which follow we have set out in detail the work undertaken by the
Commission during
1984
on
those issues which the Commission
regards as priorities.”
In
fact these priorities are largely the
combined priorities of each section as submitted to the Commission
each autumn for the following year. Consideration of these
proposals appears to be confined to points of detail rather than
assessing the suitability of each plan or, indeed, checking its
objectives against an overall policy document.
So
if the Commissioners do not devote much time to strategic
planning, what
is
their proper role, and is this question part of a
larger question about the proper role of the Commission itself?
Since the Commission is an agency independent of government in
some senses but not in others, there is an inevitable difficulty in
deciding whether it should be carrying out government policy or
There are five sections: the Legal section (four lawyers) who advise the Commissioners
as
well
as
the other sections and who occasionally take
cases
themselves in
court
(there
is
also an outside legal adviser); an Employment section with
10
members of staff who are
Higher Executive Officers
or
above and whose brief is self-explanatory; an Education
and Training section with
six
staff members who
are
H.E.0.s
or
above; a Goods,
Facilities and Services section which deals with all services and advertising and which has
six
officers
of
H.E.O. status
or
above; a ResearchPolicy Co-ordination section which
includes the Library and which has three
officers
of the above status. There is also a
Statistics section and a fairly large publicity staff which operates both in Manchester and
in London.
For
further details consult the E.0.C.k Annual Reports.
Recounted briefly by Anna Coote, “Equality and the Curse
of
the Quango,”
New
Statesman,
December
1978:
and by Byrne and Lovenduski, “The Equal Opportunities
Commission”
(2)
Women’s
Studies
International
Quarterly
,
p.
131
(1978).
To continue reading
Request your trial