Government’s single equality body has ‘credibility gap’ with groups it is meant to serve

October 17th 2006

The Government’s new Commission for Equality and Human Rights has a credibility gap amongst the groups it is meant to help, the chairman of the Disability Rights Commission Bert Massie said today.

Speaking at Northampton University, Mr Massie said that a failure to seriously bridge the gap during the CEHR’S formation could result in stakeholders continuing to view it with suspicion and damage its effectiveness.

In the first speech on the prospects of CEHR since the appointment of Trevor Philips as its chairman, Mr Massie also challenged the Government to ensure that new commissioner appointments put ‘real representatives of the marginalised’ instead of the usual suspects in the driving seat.

The CEHR will replace the Disability Rights Commission, Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality in October 2007.

Delivering the keynote speech to the annual One World Week event at Northampton University, Mr Massie said:

‘While the existing commissions have worked hard to win grassroots support and political commitment, the CEHR project is notable for being devoid of both. I challenge anyone to find a grassroots movement clamouring for a CEHR. Instead, grassroots groups have largely been conscripts to the entire process. At various stages they have threatened to strangle it at conception or at birth.’

Speaking on the need to bridge the gulf between the CEHR and grassroots groups, Mr Massie said its achievement would be critical to the success of the new body:

‘The CEHR must be for those whose ability to achieve their potential is most strikingly limited by prejudice or discrimination, whose dignity and worth are least respected and whose opportunities to participate in society are most seriously curtailed.’

Suspicion of the new commission amongst grassroots groups could be tackled in the approach the Government took to appointing new commissioners, Mr Massie said:

‘New commissioners should not just be representatives of special interest groups, but insiders that can claim with legitimacy to be real representatives of the marginalised. The CEHR needs commissioners who understand the nuances of grassroots movements and have the ability to translate this into authoritative action. Without them the salience of the CEHR will soon be lost and with it comes the risk that all its deeds will be viewed as acts of betrayal.’