Women and Equalities Committee Select Committees

Thank you so much for being with us

today and if everyone can take their

seats. Sorry we are starting late.

And can I say good morning to you

and also anybody who is working on

is back and watching online or the

public gallery. This is the third

and last all evidence session into

our enquiry into the Government's

raised its piracy audit which has

provided evidence of disparity

between differences in ethic groups

in public and services. We have two

witnesses today and after we have

had this session will be hearing

from David Lidington in the Cabinet

Office. Our panel here today gives

us more the opportunity to look at

the office for National statistics

and equality and human rights

commission's work in this area and

issues that should be addressed.

Before I start, so could I ask you

to say your name and the

organisation you represent.

I am Ian

Bell at the National statistics

office.

Thank you all for being here

today and we will start are

questioning today.

My question is to

Melanie. The E HRC submission to our

enquiry seems to think that the work

your enquiry is doing is better at

uncovering inequalities in the race

disparity order. In your opinion, do

you think the audit has been a waste

of time?

No, I don't. Certainly we

do to our own work, we have a

statutory duty to report to

Parliament on progress towards

equality and human rights in Britain

and we do that through our fear of

report. That's a very structured

approach for which we use the

measurement framework, which that at

all areas of life and uses a variety

of qualitative and quantitative data

sources. The raised its piracy audit

is a different exercise and I think

it fulfils a different purpose. --

race disparity audit. It does things

are approach isn't able to do, in

terms of the amount of original

analysis. But on the other hand, it

has gaps where we actually do

publish data. They fulfil a

different purpose. I think it has

also been extremely beneficial that

the Government has shown such an

interest in this issue and it

certainly raised the profile of race

disparity in society. So we welcome

that.

OK, but the EHRC did see the

data lacks robustness, completeness

and comparability. Is there

something that can be remedied? Do

you have some suggestions about

making the audit and offensive?

Yes,

I think things can always be

improved and that's probably equally

true for our own work and we always

look to improve. We talk to the race

disparity unit on an ongoing basis

about where we think additional data

would be useful and I know that they

are planning to add more data to the

website. We will be helping to guide

them in that. For example, on higher

education, we think that there is

more data that is available and

could be used. The main issue for us

is around setting the data in

context. So we think it would make

the data more useful if there was

more contextual information which

enables people to understand what it

means and that it drew links between

different data sets. For example,

looking at the relationship between

attainment in access to higher

education and linking that to

employment.

But are the lessons that

we should be learning from the

altered in terms of how Government

actually collects data and how we

can make it more relevant, robust

and useful?

I think certainly and

I'm sure ONS will have views on that

as well. There are differences in

the way organisations disaggregate

ethnicity data which wakes it

difficult to make comparisons,

things are changing the way people

do things over time, making it

difficult to track progress. I think

there are lessons to learn in terms

of completeness and consistency

about how we look at these issues.

I'm just going to pressure a bit

further on the usefulness of the

data. You've expend about having

contacts, which makes sense. There's

any other way the data could have

been presented which could have the

data more useful to us?

Well, the

Government took a view that it was

going to publish the raw data, in

effect, without putting any kind of

analysis or context around it and I

can see that there are risks with

doing that for Government because it

may be seen at being political spin,

the way that the information is

presented if it isn't just resented

in its raw form. But for people to

use the data, they needed that

analysis and context and therefore,

we try to provide that with or

report. Our reporters on a different

basis but I think there is room for

the Government to supplement what is

the with a something that would make

it easier for people to actually

use.

Ian, I don't know if you wanted

to comment on this point.

The point

around the usefulness and

comparability? The way the system

hopefully works is that we publish

in ONS what is called harmonisation

guidance. Departments, whether the

our collecting administrative data

for how they run benefit systems or

education systems and also the

surveys the conduct, are then

advised to harmonise against those

classifications. What became

apparent through the race disparity

audit is something which I think was

no one but shone a light in this

area. It is that many organisations

have yet to align the latest ONS

classifications for the 2011 census

and of course we are now coming up

of the 2021 census. In part of the

preparation for that, we are working

through body ethnicity

classification should look like. We

know there's a real job to do to

work with organisations across

Government in order to get that

consistency of approach right of the

way across the data collectors and

make sure that the harmonisation is

there. Some NHS bodies are

collecting 2001 definitions still, I

know the Department for Education,

my old apartment, was on a hybrid

between 2001 and 2011. If we can get

everyone up to the same level and

work with them towards the 2021

census, it will undertake and take

that increase incompatibility

across-the-board. It is a task I

have to take on as part of the next

stage of the census development.

Scanner has a supplementary, they

worried about the robustness and

consistency of the data. Whether

particular areas where the

organisation was concerned about

that robustness of the data? That is

worrying. I can understand

completeness and comparability. But

if you are saying some of the data

wasn't robust, that would be useful

to have a particular example.

I

think I will have to write to you

about that.

Will you put in

something about how you would have

done it differently? We are trying

to get at if something like an audit

like this is done, the robustness

mixers question whether the

integrity of the -- makes as

question whether the integrity of

the data is correct.

We think it is

really important there is a central

point that guy is a strategic

approach across Government to

address the essays that occur across

all areas of life and equality.

Following the recent cabinet

reshuffle, responsibility for the

race disparity units now sits with

the Cabinet office with its

coordination role. Recently, it was

a split responsibility. I think that

is really welcome. I hope it is a

strong push from the centre to take

coordinated action across all these

issues. In fact, we would like to

see that happen all the quality

protector characteristics which have

different responsibilities across

Government. And do not think it

matters which department it sits in,

it is that it sits in a place which

has an overview and is able to

influence action across Government.

What do you think about the action

that has been taken so far by the

Government, devolving to the

relevant departments?

I think there

is a kind of push and pull thing

going on here. I think that is

probably right. You need that kind

of point of view to say, what are

the priority issues we need to focus

on getting traction on? And

departments responsible for

particular issues, the best place to

come up with policy responses that

we have not yet seen, really, what's

those policy responses are going to

be.

What is the role of the

Commission in all of this?

I think

the role of the Commission is to

form our own views about what we

think the priorities are based on

our analysis and understanding of

the data. And then to encourage and

press Government to turn the

information into reaction.

Thank

you.

The UK has been collecting

ethnicity data to identify

inequalities for a good many years.

While there have been some successes

in reducing inequalities in a few

areas, some issues remain stubbornly

entrenched. Is it reasonable for us

and the HRC to assume this will make

a significant inroads in tackling

the men -- more entrenched problems?

To answer that you need to think

about what conditions you actually

need to make progress on an issue. I

think that's transparency and

leadership and commitment are part

of that. They are kind of the

beginning of that journey. What then

needs to happen is for people to

take ownership of the issues and

actually act on them. I think

obviously we have known about a lot

of these issues for a very long

time. They persist and progress has

not been as rapid as we would have

liked to see.

Is this knowing it

every two bit more is going to

change anything?

I think there is a

risk. Action should be based on

evidence. There is a risk the search

for more and better evidence can

delay action. I do not think, if we

know that certain ethnic groups are

underachieving at school, it is

useful to know all the factors that

contribute to that. It doesn't stop

the actually trying to do something

in the classroom. -- you trying to

do something in the classroom.

You

said the HRC will form their own

response to the audit. What form

will that take when will we see it?

Republished our road map to race

equality very shortly after the

audit was published. Which

identified a number of areas we that

urgent action was needed and we

worked with some race equality

organisations to produce that

report.

Is there anything else you

are planning to do as a result of

that?

We are continuing to keep an

eye on what is happening in touch

with race disparity unit and we are

continuing to ask them how the

policy responses are progressing.

Another thing we are doing at the

moment is some research into the

public sector the quality duty. --

equality duty. That followed on from

the earlier race equality duty. The

policy idea behind it was it should

harness the power of the public

sector in addressing persistent

equality issues. I think it is clear

from the figures that hasn't been

entirely successful. We are looking

at how the duty has been working and

considering whether we can make some

recommendations about how it can be

improved to make it be more

effective.

Did any of the data from

the audit surprise you in terms of

inequalities, or was it called grand

you had expected and seen before? --

and ground you had expected and seen

before?

I do not think there was

anything that came as a massive

surprise.

-- old ground.

Your new

audit is going to be looking at the

advantages and limitations of ONS

data on... Is the fatal flaws?

The

work programme is broader than

ethnicity. We are looking across the

protector characteristics and the

aim of the audit is to look at the

data not just on ethnicity but

across all the other

characteristics, disability, gender

identity, sexual orientation.

The

inequalities data audit that we

studied with Government bodies that

invited them to look through the

baseline data we had available to us

and add to it has now concluded. We

had 46 responses, which I think we

feel is particularly reassuring

because it means for the majority of

our Government stakeholders, we

already had a side of the data they

had. And it was being used either by

us or through the race disparity

audit. 46 had something additionally

to offer to us. We will look through

the quality and added value that

that they take and give us.

How

satisfied are you that the data

standards in the Government's audit

are high enough?

On race disparity?

I think it is worth pointing out

that much of the data in the audit

is already published in individual

departments and published often with

the badges of national or official

statistics designed to provide

reassurance that these are done in

line with the UK Statistics

Authority code of practice and are

of high quality. The audit has tied

together, provided overview across

the board. For many users interested

at incoming -- coming at this from

race disparity angles, it makes it

more easily acceptable... We

seconded out some staff to work in

the audit and worked with them to

make sure the quality and accuracy

was there within the audit on that

side.

We have covered this briefly

but can I just ask, based on what

the audit revealed about how the

public sector collects ethnicity

data, could there be improvements to

how the public sector collects that

data?

Yes, they're in and out of the

-ish room for us to get more

consistency -- undoubtably room for

more consistency across the board.

If it ain't the interpretation and

allows it to be easier to follow

through some of the disparities we

have talked about already, if the

education system is not on the same

definition as the labour market

data, it becomes harder for users to

quickly come to conclusions.

So the

improvements you would recommend

there are consistency, comparability

and similar definitions?

Alignment

with the harmonised standards which

the public, yes.

Can I go back to

the specifics of administrative

data? Which we are not

statisticians, that we understand

there are real concerns about the

way that data is gathered and then

used, and that the limitations of

that data have to be carefully

considered. I am thinking

particularly about Gypsy Roma

Traveller communities who can deal

-- Roman that's their position in

the system is compounded. Would you

agree?

We have different sources,

sensors, service, administrative

data, all of which have different

strengths and limitations. The issue

you highlight, for each of these, it

relies from census the surveys and

administrative data, there are

different reasons for interacting

with that. Every ten years, the

census, there must be trust in the

system that the data is used in

partially and independently and we

would like to think we enable that.

Surveys are usually run for

households on a voluntary basis. For

those communities there are two

issues which we recap. One is how do

we make sure that within it the

survey House roads are even getting

to the population. -- households.

Second, there are issues around with

a naturally respond to these data

and that collection? And

administrative data, when the Gypsy

Traveller community, data will be

collected as a by-product. It is

recorded on what the person wants to

express their identity as being and

relies on the person saying they

want their identity recorded in the

assessment group. All rely on the

trust around how data is collected

and the bodies who are doing it. I

think it is particularly for the

group you highlight it, I think it

would be difficult to conclude that

anyone system is better than any

other. I think each other strengths

and limitations. In using the

different types of sources of data,

it is important we make it clear

where the strengths and limitations

are so people know and understand

the issues which can be done. I do

not think it is fair to say

particularly that administrative

data is particularly poor, but

compared to others, yes.

Given we

are doing with groups were trust may

not be strong, what are you doing to

ensure that new methodologies are

adopted to overcome that. Otherwise,

we are living with a fatal flaw in

the data?

As I mentioned earlier, we

are preparing for the 2021 census.

One of the core aspects is community

engagement we will be undertaking,

we are already in large-scale

stakeholder engagement on what are

the needs for a user ethnicity data

and what is the suitability for

inclusion in the census. Our

ambition in ONS, too often we have

set up community engagement which

sets up groups to have trust and

fill it in for the census, but then

the infrastructure tends to fade

into the background after the census

has happened. We need to design it

so that we do not set up a community

engagement programme for giving

statistical information that

disappears again on an ongoing

basis. We need to build the trust,

provide the information which allows

accurate data to be done. We're

building to that the moment and are

determined to sustain.

It feels you

might have a census to me that he

might have a mini- census. -- you

might

We have a programme of research at

the moment called the administrative

data census and that is looking at

the information which is held across

Government at the moment and, could

we use that to provide updates on

the population on an ongoing basis

in between census years? Yes, your

assertion is we could be looking at

not many censuses in that sense but

even many senses of the population

using data which exists already.

Just moving back to the race

disparity audit, but it was

important to know what datasets

might be available. Much of the

evidence we've received his calls

for far more granularity in the data

that is included in the audit. And

the ability to control for variables

so that it can be determined whether

race in the factor in causing a

particular disparity. Do you think

the audit provides enough detail for

this sort of robust analysis of the

causes of disparities?

The audit

certainly, there are some examples

within it where it gave more

information than just the ethnicity

breakdown. The one example which

immediately springs to mind is the

education where it also provided

education on free school meals as an

education of income levels to try

and get into deprivation. I think

where it summed it up was available

provided the information, but

fundamentally, I am turning to the

work of Emma's team. The importance

of the work is really the ability to

look at all the characteristics and

are not just race on this side. I

think it's our view that we need to

do a bigger job building on the work

we've just added with the audit we

mentioned earlier into much more of

round all the inequalities.

Just to

emphasise that we see the race

disparity audit as it currently

stands as the beginning. It is

providing common evidence base from

which we can build a variety of

different conversations. Whilst it

doesn't necessarily all, is a

surprise to some of us who are

familiar with the contents, there

are a number of third parties that

want to have had access to the

breadth of the content of the

current audit. It begins the right

sort of conversation and were ONS

can add value is starting to

introduce other variables, other

factors and start to broaden out the

intersection hours we were the data

that is available to us.

But our

statistical professionals, are you

not worried when, as we've had

evidence given to us which shows how

much this data could be

misinterpreted? I'm sure not

wilfully, but just by default. For

instance, the audit shows that black

women are almost twice as likely to

have a common mental health problem

as white women. But you could also

be looking in that same dataset that

information like housing tenure and

other elements which could provide

much more information than that

simple fact around mental health to

try and explain why that problem is

happening. Clearly not necessarily

driven, may not be driven by NHS

issues or access to NHS issues, but

maybe a disproportionate pub at

ability that they are living in

certain sort of housing or any other

number of things. Yet that Laura low

data isn't available.

I think the

audit was very clear, and the

caveats were there quite clearly

about how to use the data. But this

is always going to be a tension

within a statistical system, whereby

if you wait for fully understanding

and knowing all the causes of the

system, then the data may not have

seen the light of day for quite a

long time. And actually, that then

means that all the onus is on the

people who have the data in order to

fully analyse and do all the

causalities. And actually, what the

audit can usefully do is by putting

the data together in one place and

making it available, it can begin to

get better question is asked to

allow the evidence and analysis and

further research to get into

explaining the disparities. I view

it as being a starting point for

further research and analysis which

enables us to achieve more by having

out there and available to a wider

group of researchers than if it was

simply waited for until all of that

analysis was completed by the data

holders.

You talk about this tension

and I think you're absolutely right.

There is a concern again, different

amendment were coming from a

different set of witnesses, that if

you continue to segregate the data

you could always show that there are

other factors at work that could

conceal with disparities. What I

advise would you give to the

departments who are currently

analysing this data so that they get

that tension right?

The Government,

the departments across Government,

are part of the Government

statistical service, and they are

very used to this tension on a

day-to-day basis and manage it for

the datasets the release. They are

constantly weighing it up, not just

with the attention they have the but

also the risk of disclosure as we

get to smaller and smaller numbers

as well. And so they will be

factoring this in them. The best

advice we would be giving us that we

are here to help and advise in terms

of we have a lot of experience and

disclosure control as ONS and we are

here to help and advice, but

fundamentally it is about making

sure that there is and Melanie put

this very well, transparency is a

necessary condition for open data in

the transparency of the data

alongside the all analysis and

evidence they do have and the

appropriate caveats in order to make

sure that it is fully understood

what you can't and can't conclude it

is usually the best way to manage

your way through that tension. But

the transparency of the data is

essential.

That's really helpful,

brilliant. Any other questions?

Thank you so much for your time this

morning, really helpful in the

formulation of our report. Thank you

for your time and I know it takes a

lot of energy to come here and

prepare for it so we are immensely

grateful. We are now going to move

on to our next session. So if I

could ask eyewitnesses to leave and

any members of the audience who

wants to leave, please do. We are

moving on to our next session and

rigidly, seamlessly. If I could ask

eyewitnesses to take their seats and

also members of the audience who are

joining us, I'd be grateful, and I'd

like to welcome our minister, David

Lidington, and also mark Bell, who

is here from the Cabinet Office. And

two people who have joined us in the

audience as well. Minister, your

predecessor was keen to engage with

the committee about the next steps

the Government should take now that

the first stage of the race

disparity audit has been complacent.

We are grateful for that and we look

forward to assessing the evidence we

have heard and putting our

conclusions and recommendations into

the usual report. However, we do

want to learn today more about the

Government's on thinking, what

you've learnt about the audit and

what steps you plan to take to build

on that and to respond importantly

to its findings. I don't think I

need to ask you to introduce

yourselves, I think I've already

done that, but I will move in

rigidly on to our first set of

questions, which are going to be

asked by Jess.

Your predecessor so

describes it as explain or change.

Does this mean that if the disparity

can be explained that the Government

doesn't think it needs to be

changed?

It depends what the

explanation is. For example, one of

the lines of constructive criticism

that has been of some of the

statistics that we have presented in

the audit is that they've not been

adjusted for age or for other

characteristics, plus income level

that might provide a better, more

subtle explanation of the phenomenon

that we are seeing. So I would say

that the audit is unprecedented in

just the sheer scope and scale of

what is being presented and it is

backed up by a determination from

the Prime Minister personally Darren

to address racial disparities.

Obviously one looks at the evidence

and, for example, at the evidence

presented in the audit of

educational attainment at school.

Actually, you see different average

levels of attainment by boys and

girls within each ethnicity and you

see some quite stark differences

between the relative performance

levels on an average of different

ethnic minorities. So one needs to

think, what is it that lies behind

those inequalities? And then devise

a policy response that addresses

that.

In that case, even if you

could explain it, you would still

stick to change it.

The audit is the

starting point. You then say, if

there is this inequality in outcome,

is there some reason for it? That

may throw up a reason that goes

beyond a simple, say people are

judging those from one or another

minority group and further, there

may be other contributions, but then

you want to ensure that there is

genuine equality of opportunity in

things like education and you want

to ensure that all public services

are operating anyway that is fair to

all citizens of this country.

It

seems to me that you want to change

it regardless, which is not a bad

thing. It sounds like change or

change.

I think a challenge, I would

say, is the keyword there.

So, how

is the Government going about

explaining the disparities in the

audit?

We are now in the process of

getting the Whitehall machinery into

action about this. There have been a

number of early priorities, one

which, given my previous job, I knew

something about, the Government's

response to the report on the

experience of black and ethnic

minority people in the criminal

justice system. When Justice

Secretary, I announced the

Government's response to that at the

end of the last year, setting

demanding targets for the prison

service in terms of recruitment and

development into leadership

positions in the prison service. We

are also...

You're prioritising

certain areas.

Yes, and one of the

things I intend to do, having

inherited this position, is use the

grip on racial disparity which is

supported by the unit in the Cabinet

Office that Marcus herds to ensure

that each secretary of state, each

department are addressing those

things that fall within the areas of

responsibility. They will need to be

a system prioritisation here,

otherwise we will find effort and

resources spread too thinly to have

a proper understanding.

What if any

deadline have each Government

department been given for explaining

the areas of disparity?

We are not

at that stage yet. What I want to do

is make sure that when we are 12

months on from the initial

publication of the orders we are

able to say that there has been some

demonstrable progress made across

Government. The earliest priorities

have been the response to the

criminal Justice report, some work

that we are undertaking and

employment where we are targeting

efforts in about 20 areas of the

country which have both a high rates

of unemployment, high BAME

unemployment and white citizens gap

in unemployment and guess at what

lies behind those differences in

outcome and then we will be

announcing fairly certain and

externally led review of school

exclusions. Because again, you look

at the stats that are in the audit

and you see that there are more

black is being excluded from school

both temporarily and then

permanently and need to understand

what it says that is driving that

and what can be done about it.

You have to have 30s because the

Cabinet office is only as big as it

is. -- priorities. It will be

helpful to explain the findings of

the audit...

It will the

it will be the Secretary of State,

Cabinet officers, the Prime Minister

has made it clear she regards it as

a key aspect of the social policy

programme. But it will have to be

done within the Budget allocated.

The Secretary of State makes its for

spending...

What will happen if

nothing is done?

There will be

meetings of the ministerial group.

The unit, markets may want to add to

this, is talking to colleagues

around Whitehall the whole time

about what they are doing. One of

the things I have since being

appointed is where things now stand.

I have asked. And making sure they

have a follow-up...

All the data on

the website comes from departments,

it is not our data they sensed a us.

They have analysts more than capable

of conducting a thorough regression

analysis. They are doing that. They

have been asked by us to do a

regression analysis on all the

measures on site and we are

coordinating how they are doing

that.

Trying to explain, you have

analysts in every department that is

relevant. And so it is specifically

on data analysis?

That aspect is. We

are actively involved it on the

policy side.

You will be seeking

from fieldwork, talking to people?

That is for departments to decide

how they do that. We have asked them

to do a proper regression analysis

on data on the site.

Before I bring

in Eddie, can I ask for more

detailed? From what has said,

education and the criminal justice

Section could be top priorities in

what you are doing. They could be

cleared data on racial disparities,

exclusion particularly. The evidence

we have been given would suggest

that in other areas there will be

co-dependencies which are driving

disparity. We were given the example

that black women are twice as likely

to have mental health problems than

white women. More likely to be

living in social housing. It's maybe

that housing tenure is the problem

rather than race. How will you bring

that thinking together because

health and housing sit in different

Government departments? And do you

think there is room for a strategies

year so that those who are

interested -- strategy here so those

interested will know what priorities

you have decided our most important.

We have heard from O N as and HRC

that's transparency is essential for

good strategy... The data and is

that the data currently on the site

is that there are 130-140 measures.

We didn't have time to make linkages

between the different data sets.

That is something we could

prioritise in the second phase. It

would be interesting to know more

about the connections between

education, mental health, housing

and employment data. We are

discussing that other departments.

On the policy side, as you say, some

of the issues raised are classic

crosscutting Government policies,

whether there are serious

dependencies. We will be discussing

that between the connections between

education and deployment.

We have no

plans at the moment to have a formal

cross- Government strategy. But

rather to expect departments to take

account of the Prime Minister's

priority here to work within their

area of responsible to. Sometimes

taking initiatives on the back of

the audit. Sometimes using audit

findings to influence the

development of work they were doing

anyway to provide for more effective

policies. To take your mental health

example, the Secretary of State for

Health and social care is of course

already preparing a mental health

strategy that will be published

later this year. He and his team

will be looking to the results of

the audit and building that in

similarly, the Westway review was

established towards the end of last

year into detention under the Mental

Health Act. It is a matter of record

that black people in particular are

more likely statistically to the

subject to detention than white

people under the Mental Health Act.

He will no doubt want to take that

into account in his work.

You are

making choices with the wages use

scarce resources. How can this

committee scrutinise your choices.

-- with the way you use scarce

resources.

Ultimately, in policy

terms, the choices are for

secretaries of state. In their

departments. What we seek to do

through the ministerial group is to

both remind... To remind the

Secretary of State of state --

secretaries of state that the Prime

Minister attaches a high priority to

this and they are continuing to work

on this. Certainly, it would be

helpful to the committee, we could

look for ways to perhaps provide a

report to the committee from time to

time on progress so that the

committee has a view of what is

happening across Whitehall. I see no

problem about that as a matter of

principle. As I say, sometimes the

work to address the disparities

found in the audit will take place

within the context of a broader

policy works June that that

particular Secretary of State is

taking on.

I am sure the committee

would always relished any

information the Government could

furnish them with.

I am surprised.

You have had the data from the audit

for a very long time. Most of the

findings are not a secret. There is

no doubt there is a link between

people who do not receive a lot of

money in terms of employment and the

gap in pay for ethnic minority.

There is no chance of home ownership

for those who rent. It sounds

piecemeal, the approach. Unless you

have crosscutting Government

strategy, you cannot solve this. I

am sure you are aware of that. Is

there no chance of having perhaps a

minister for a race who can

coordinate everything that is

happening across departments? If it

is really a priority for the Prime

Minister and she is attaching

welcome importance, it doesn't sound

like you have an overall strategy.

Correct me if I am wrong but it

sounds like each department is doing

its own thing and that won't solve

the problem.

It is important that

each department feels like they have

responsibility here. I can

understand the argument. The risk

with designating a minister for race

equality, let's say, is that

departments then say it is that

minister's job rather than my job as

a minister for schools, courts, the

prison service. The police. To

address these problems in my

particular areas of responsibility

and dealing with the public services

for which in my ministerial capacity

I am responsible. The fact that the

unit is located in the Cabinet

office gives us a locus and

coordinating role to make sure

departments are being kept up to the

mark. I do not think that it would

be right to portray the Government's

response is in the recent sluggish.

We are determined to make certain of

the initiatives we take actually

identifying and apply policy

solutions that are going to work.

Taking your point about employment

and what we are doing their is to

establish 20 pilot projects as I

describe in areas of the country

where we have a high BAME population

and a large gap between ethnic

minority and white employment rates.

What we are doing is have Jobcentre

plus working with employers, the

voluntary sector, to understand and

take action to remedy those gaps.

Partly improving the training from

the Jobcentre staff dealing with

people from minority groups seeking

work. It also means talking to local

employers about things like perhaps

having a normalised job applications

addressing possible questions of

unconscious bias. It also means

talking to training providers

locally and education providers

because in some cases, I don't want

to speculate, but it may be we find

for some reason young people from

particular groups are not getting

access or gaining the qualifications

for which employers in that area are

looking. We need to get to grips

with the reason at a concrete level

and then put in place...

I don't

think any of this data comes as a

surprise. It has been around for

years, people from ethnic minority

communities not getting the right

kind of pay or jobs they want. To

deny the links with housing I think

is astonishing. To say that someone

doesn't get paid enough money

therefore they cannot get on the

housing ladder, cannot rent, not to

address the problems in the rental

market, housing, I do not think you

can do with these departments

individually. You must realise there

has to be a overall strategy. I do

not think establishing a minister of

race would be dodging

responsibility, I think it would be

establishing...

I have not ever said

that we will ignore the housing

question, or ignore possible

relationships there. I think that

when it comes to employment, there

have been some good signs of

progress. We know one of the groups

of people who are still least likely

to be in work are women from

Pakistani and Bangladeshi

communities in this country. It is

way below the national average for

female employment. It is still in

the last ten years we have seen a

significant increase in the number

of women from these communities

getting into employment. There are

success stories about the country we

can learn from and build on as well.

Are you satisfied with the level of

increase in the number of ethnic

minority women in 2018 that have got

jobs?

No. The fact it is way below

average we cannot be satisfied.

We

will need to move on for time.

Eddie?

When disparities cannot be

explained, what deadlines have been

set for departments to come up with

a plan?

We are still at relatively

early stages here, you will

appreciate I have been in the post

coming up to one month. In terms of

the work already done at official

level, I am not talking about sex

deadlines...

As you said earlier,

the general aim is to be able to

demonstrate very significant

progress in tackling some of the key

-- I am not talking about set

deadlines.

What streams have been started in

response to the Government's

findings?

The Government response to

the present enquiry was important.

The exclusion response where we will

have an external lead and a panel

will be set up externally to have a

member gratifies on that. Then we

have a number of work streams that

are going on within Government about

this. I mentioned the work that was

going on in terms of the review in

mental health, but when we go back

to education, the previous Secretary

of State for Education last autumn,

shortly before Christmas, launched a

social mobility plan for the

Department and findings of the audit

are being built into the ongoing

work of the department and social

mobility. So that's how the address

the broader issue of social

mobility, they are taking account of

the particular challenges thrown up

by the racial disparity audit. Not

to the exclusion of everyone else,

because it is a real challenge in

terms of kids from polar White

families in terms of

underperformance and schools as

well.

What criteria are you using to

determine how you focus your

efforts?

We are looking at the

findings of the audit. We are saying

to departments, where there is an

equality of outcome, the Prime

Minister will set this challenge

that you change or explain. We

accept that sometimes there will be

a crosscutting issue, other times it

may be that you are having to

address quite a deep-seated issues

about a relationship between people

in a particular community. The

operation of a public service and

the expectations that one has of the

other, and then to come forward and

come up with your solutions. But

it's going to be work that is not

going to be accomplished in six, not

even 12 months. This is going to be

a programme of work that will need

to be followed through for a period

of years and I think under more than

one Parliament. If we are going to

get genuine equality of opportunity

that we want to see.

But it feels

that the problem could be so broad

it very difficult to focus down on

specific areas and prioritise.

Secondly, to what Tulip said, this

information has been around a long

time. I appreciate your volley been

in post for a month, but in terms of

deadlines, to be able to sit here in

12 months and say, we know it is

very broad, but what has actually

changed?

What I have said two

officials is that I want us to be

any position, I think there will be

an expectation in parliament and

were generally, 12 months on from

publication of the audit in October

this year to be able to say in

public, this is the measurable

progress that has been made. While I

met some of the leading NGOs is in

this field a couple of weeks ago,

they felt that the timescale was a

reasonable one.

Organisations like

have welcomed the order, but when I

have been speaking to them, there

are questions or what difference

with this initiative may compare two

different ones that have taken place

in the blast, so do you have a plan

for serious action in targeted

areas? Do you have plans for

measurable targets and are you going

to focus on procurement about

tackling racial disparities when it

comes to employment?

First of all on

the organisations, I have found that

when I have taught them they are

very welcoming of this. What I have

said to them in response to the

challenge that they have

understandably made is that this is

the difference, that this is going

to be a sustained period of work.

It's not going to be something that

we published in order to get a

headline in October 2017 and are

then going to forget about. That

does mean we are not going to be

looking for glib headlines and

something we can claim as an instant

result, it has to be steady work,

target by target, priority by

priority, to deliver the right

outcomes over time. Certainly what

they said to me is that it is the

feeling of the people they represent

is that it is a flash in the pan. --

the fear of the people. We have to

demonstrate sustained effort.

Budgets? I said earlier that every

Government department operates

within the budget that they were

allocated in the spending review.

Clearly the work that apartments

want to do in the next spending

period is something that secretaries

of state bid for in the normal way.

There is a limited budget available

in the Cabinet Office to try to

support crosscutting work. But we

look to departments because this is

about achieving the Prime Minister's

stated social policy objectives, to

find within the existing resources,

to deliver results.

An additional

point about scrutiny and follow-up.

I think there is one important point

about the product from the report

being a living website. There is

already some series on this, but as

the data changes we will add it, so

you will be able to see month by

month, year by year, whether things

are getting better or worse. I think

that provides transparency but also

some accountability and also

pressure for change.

It's not one

set of stats and that's it.

Month by

month, once you want to implement

the findings of the orders, how will

you be measuring the success of the

initiatives you are planning to

implement?

That's a slightly

different issue. We will update data

on the website for all of the

measures as it changes and quite a

lot has changed since launch in

October, so there have already been

a lot of updates. I think it is a

separate question as and when

Department said at the initiatives

to tackle inequalities.

The unifying

the crosscutting strategy was help

you to measure the success of the

sale of more than having individual

departments are their own thing?

Actually, I think the gap between

what Tulip is calling for, a cross

Government discussed J and what I am

describing, which is departments

building this work into their

mainstream business and building it

in as part of the key priorities,

with a coordinating mechanism of

voters by Marcus's unit and by the

interministerial group I chair, I

think that gap is perhaps less than

you fear.

Have previous Government

is not tried that one feels? -- and

a failed.

And don't want to pass

judgment on previous governments. It

is fair to say this is something

successive governments have talked

about and we still see some of these

inequalities of outcome.

Which means

the previous Government strategies

have not worked.

I don't think there

is a magic to putting the label of

cross Government strategy on

something. I have seen plenty of

those, and go in my time in

Parliament. What I believe can make

the difference here is the personal

commitment of the Prime Minister and

I do think also the reaction of

people in a lot of departments at

operational levels, and this is the

advice I get for the Cabinet Office

team, has been very positive that

this is something that key officials

in Government positions really want

to make a difference over.

I seem to

remember a previous prime ministers

being committed to that exercise it,

don't know where that one went! Is

the reason the audit didn't refer to

the public sector audit committee?

Simply a slightly different thing.

The publics sceptre equality duty

requires public authorities to have

due regard to eliminate unlawful

discrimination, harassment,

victimisation and other things that

are outlawed by the act and to

advance equality of opportunity and

foster good relations. Those duties

apply. What we are looking at here

is we are focusing on the outcomes.

What is the experience of people

from BAME communities? How can we

make sure that public services

genuinely are providing equal

treatment and equality of

opportunity for them? Those services

are already under public sector

equality duty. In my experience,

management and leaders in the public

services are very well aware of

their responsibilities in that

regard. But what we are needing to

do now is really probed why, despite

the existence of that duty for some

years now, there are still the

disparities that were shown last

October.

Just before I bring Angela

in, I want to pick up on one

particular issue. You talk about

departments building racial

disparity in their work, which I

think is welcome, when I think back

to the ministerial working group on

Gypsy Roma Travellers, a student

under the coalition Government in

2012, its promise, and we've all

this even looking at that piece of

work, that issues to do with Gypsy

Roma Travellers will be included in

reviews and reports in the future

from 2012 onwards and when the

reports were actually published, and

I'm thinking about things like hate

crime review or exclusion review in

2014 or bullying guidance, these

communities did not feature as had

been promised. How can we make sure

that the new reviews do exactly what

you as the minister wants them to do

and take the race disparity audit

information into account and the

work of the race disparity units? It

seems like there has been good

intentions in the past under a

Conservative led Government but we

want to make sure that this is going

to be continued in the future in a

way which can be monitored and can

be held to account. It is partly

held to account by the various

statistical series. The website is a

living source of information. Part

way through the interministerial

group where the relevant departments

will be represented. What the

trouble of stats showed was that

Gypsy and Roma children come bottom

of all the tables in terms of school

attainment. We were quite closely

with organisations representing the

community on the orders and we are

keen to include four days we could

about Gypsy and Roma Traveller

people. There are a couple of

reasons that are worth spelling out.

Some departments do not collect it,

they do not ask, are you a Gypsy,

Roma Traveller? Obviously we can

only publish the data that

apartments have. Even where it is

collected, the numbers are small and

the distribution is relatively even

across the country, so if you get

below a very general level of

analysis, you are talking about very

small numbers and there is little to

say. That doesn't mean that there is

nothing to be done going forward,

but although we were quite keen to

include what data we could, for

those reasons there is not much on

the site, with the exception of

education, whether as a lot of

detailed information about GRT

children.

How will you be

supplementing the data in the race

disparity audit to address GRT

better in the future?

We are talking

to departments about what data they

collect and about which categories

the use with the view to try and get

a bit more consistency in their

approach. I think Gypsy Roma

Traveller is one of the standard

issue as there because one

department has an awful lot of

rather disquieting information about

GRT children and how they are doing

and others know relatively little.

October was a start. We're

listening, talking to departments

and listening outside what is being

said about the additional categories

of information that they would like

to see collected and published on

the website. If the committee has

suggestions for that, I am sure we

would want to take those into

account.

Tony to the Government's

engagements with civil society, how

do you expect the role of Government

to engage to ensure disparities

revealed with the audit can be

addressed?

I made a point in the

last couple of weeks of meeting a

number of the leaders of some of the

key organisations in this field.

Official level, this is done very

regularly. How often?

We try to make

a point of that in terms of how we

do the work engaging with lots of

voluntary organisations and members

of the public.

How do you expect to

support civil society to deliver on

these outcomes you are discussing?

It is Government, summarily central

Government, that is the priority. --

summarily central Government. The

purpose of the audit is to provide

the statistical basis on which to

shape policy for the delivery of

public services. We are getting some

local authorities, some NHS trusts

who having seen the audit results

are coming to us and saying, we

would like to learn from this. What

can we do? In our areas of

responsibilities? Civil society IC

as important partners, but the

actual... It may well be as for

example in the pilot projects

unemployment that we conclude that

working more effectively with civil

society on the delivery of public

services, for example on the

mentoring of people, is the best way

to address the disparities the audit

has revealed.

Coming back to your

previous point about the role of the

Cabinet office, you mentioned how

you see the role of the Cabinet

office as coordination and almost

oversight. How will the Government

departments be held to account for

their response work on the audit.

You will be responsible for

assessing?

It will be through the

ministerial group. Which will be

served by the racial disparity unit.

The unit will report to ministers,

to me, ultimately the power minister

on the progress that has been made,

or where we are finding problems.

Moving on to the last couple of

questions. What do you think the

Cabinet office has learned about the

quality of the data on ethnicity

that is currently collected across

the public sector? Are you really

happy, or really unhappy, or

somewhere in between?

I will soon

for expertise. -- turn for

expertise. I am not a statistician.

It has been very very. Different

departments have obviously over the

years collected sets of information

that they judged was the most

important for their departmental

priorities. Sometimes that provides,

as in the case of education

attainment, some quite comprehensive

statistics about outcomes for

different ethnic groups. Other

departments have not previously seen

this as central to the role and have

not collected these statistics or

the statistics are not easily

divisible so that you can come up

with meaningful samples by age or

other social characteristics.

That

is exactly right. If you look

through the site, there is enormous

variation in the quality and depth

of ethnicity data held by Government

departments. Particularly

departments where there has been

scrutiny pressure over the years,

there can be more details, granular

and useful data, and others have not

had so much.

Is there other data you

have rejected and not put on the

website because it would be

misleading?

We identified 340

datasets and only published 20% of

those so far. Potentially, more to

come, but some we did not include

for quality reasons. It doesn't

necessarily mean it was bad data,

though in some cases it was, it is

more it did not satisfy the quality

bar we wanted to apply to the

numbers.

When we were talking

earlier this morning to the Office

of National Statistics about data,

consistency was something we raised.

We are interested to know your plans

to improve the consistency of data

collected and also the ability that

you will have two disaggregate that

data. Can you explain?

We are

working with the Office of National

Statistics, we have a great interest

in ethnic classification

consistency. We are looking through

my working the statisticians across

Government -- working with

statisticians across Government. You

cannot re-boot all departments.

Slow, incremental work to get more

consistency there is important. In

terms of data quality, obviously

this was a big cross-Government data

project in the way it networked into

analysts, departments, and had high

quality conversations on how to

improve the quality of the data

where it is not where it should be.

We try to apply the UK statistics

Association code in terms of judging

the quality of things we could

publish on the website.

You see

consistency and disaggregation as a

priority for the way this data set

developed?

I think so, yes. With

disaggregation, getting more

geographical disaggregation where we

can lose important. The feedback we

have had about this site is some of

the more usable and interesting data

is where outcomes for people of

different ethnicities are compared

in different geographical areas.

That is something we are keen to do

more on.

My final point would be, we

heard about the work OMS is doing

around the senses. -- the census.

And perhaps how that could be used

more between multiple census. Is

that something the Government will

support?

There is a clear structure

with the census whereby ONS decides

what questions are going to be

asked. Obviously there are a number

of demands for different categories

to be specified in questions on the

census. That will be for them to

make a judgment in due course, the

Office of National Statistics.

Thank

you for your time. I appreciate you

taking the time out of your busy

diaries to be with us and Dolby

preparation that goes with that. The

committee will now have a private

session.