The information below is an outline of the victory secured by Southall Black Sisters in relation to a challenge to Ealing Council threat to withdraw funding.
As you will see the High Court case concerned the Race Relations Act, in particular s.70 i.e. the legal obligation for public authorities to comply with the general duty to have due regard to
(i) eliminate unlawful discrimination
(ii) promote equality of opportunity and
(iii) promote good relations
as well as the specific duties, to conduct competent race equality impact assessments at the development stages of policy making. The outline judgement indicates that positive action is an appropriate tool to use to redress economic and social disparities.
The outline explanation of the judgement is largely self explanatory and makes informative and interesting reading. It is a good victory for Southall Black Sisters and provides guidance to all those involved in negotiating on equality impact assessments.
Supplied by: Jagdeep Sandhu, DWP Black Members Committee
Southall Black Sisters v Ealing Council
Background
Southall Black Sisters (SBS) is a community based organization that provides advice, advocacy, counselling and support services to black and minority women in Ealing who experience violence and abuse. Since mid 1980’s Ealing council has provided core funding to Southall Black Sisters
The experience and insights gained through SBS work has led to the organization becoming strategically important in providing advice on policy to local, national, government and international professionals. Earlier this year, Ealing Council threatened to withdraw £100,000 funding grant from SBS, unless it reorganised its services to mainstream its work to cover all women. Ealing was of the view that there was no need to offer specialist services to black and minority women and the services offered should be mainstreamed. Ealing made it quite clear that if SBS wished to continue to offer specialized services to cover the needs of black and minority women, it would withdraw its funding. Without securing additional funding this would have had the effect of closing down SBS.
Ealing’s view failed to take account of the unequal social, economic and cultural context which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for black and minority women to access outside help or seek information about their rights. Neither did Ealing take into account that SBS has helped any woman irrespective of ethnicity when approached.
SBS campaigns in such critical areas of work as forced marriage, honour killings, suicides and self harm, religious fundamentalism and immigration difficulties, especially the ‘no recourse to public funds’ would have been drastically cut back .
The suicide rates of Asian women for example, are already three times the national average and homicides - where abusive men and families kill their wives, daughters or daughters-in-law - are also high within some black and minority communities. In all likelihood, any reduction in services would have seen a rise in suicide and homicide rates amongst black and minority women.
Had Ealing Council been successful, the disparate impact on black women would have been devastating. It would have meant that abused black and minority women, who already face considerable racism, discrimination and cultural pressures would no longer have access to a specialist service.
Southall Black Sisters’ Victory against Ealing Council
‘There is no dichotomy between funding specialist services and cohesion; equality is necessary for cohesion to be achieved.’ Lord Justice Moses
On 18 July at the High Court, in a dramatic turn of events, Ealing Council withdrew their case after one and a half days of a hearing which saw their defence rapidly unravelling. From the outset, it became apparent to the presiding judge, Lord Justice Moses and to all those present in the courtroom including the packed public gallery, that Ealing Council was skating on really thin ice in attempting to justify its decision to cut funding to SBS and to commission instead one generic borough wide service on domestic violence on the grounds of ‘equality’ and ‘cohesion’.
Amongst other things, Ealing Council was charged with the failure to:
Have proper regard to the race equality legislation and other equalities duties or its own policies when it made its decision to end funding to SBS. It failed to carry out a full and proper equality impact assessment and when it did, it was only to justify its decision;
Interpret correctly the race equality legislation by deciding that our very name and constitution (to meet the needs of Asian and African-Caribbean women) was in breach of the Race Relations Act because it ‘excluded’ white women;
Interpret correctly the cohesion agenda by assuming that it was contrary to the race equality legislation.
As the two days wore on, Ealing Council found it difficult to maintain its defence in the light of extensive evidence which showed that it had committed a series of fundamental errors and was in fact close to being regarded as having conducted the matter in ‘bad faith’ – a very serious allegation. The judge was disturbed by the way in which the Council had behaved and was demanding that it account for aspects of its actions which he found ‘blood curdling’. The Council had misinterpreted statistics which showed that black and minority women have rates of reporting domestic violence in Ealing that are disproportionate to their size of population and a crucial letter from the author of a report on gaps in domestic violence services in Ealing was not taken into account by the Council when deciding to provide a generic service, leading her to make a formal complaint.
The Council eventually decided to withdraw its case thereby denying SBS the opportunity of having a full judgement setting out the facts of the case and the litany of failures on the part of the Council – which would have been devastating for the Council and in particular for its leader. But we were able to secure a shorter judgement (pending) – which will take the form of guidance to Ealing and hopefully to all other local authorities so that in future they comply properly with the racial and other equalities legislation. Essentially the principles that will be reiterated are:
Local authorities must have proper regard to the Race Relations Act which also means undertaking proper equality impact assessments at the formative stage of the decision making process;
Cohesion does not mean disregarding the need for equality. Local authorities cannot hide behind cohesion arguments to cut specialist service provision;
Positive action is an essential part of the duty to promote racial equality. Special services run for and by BME groups (whatever their name) are not contrary to the Race Relations Act.
This result of all this is that Ealing Council must now go back to the drawing board and although the outcome could be the same again, hopefully, our victory will make it more difficult for it to ignore the guidance and therefore SBS. The Council has agreed to continue to fund SBS at the previous level until it completes the process of commissioning based on any new decision on domestic violence services.
Ealing Council also agreed to pay the costs of our legal representation and unusually the costs of the Equality and Human Rights Commission which intervened in the case as an interested third party. The total costs are likely to amount to about £100,000 – the amount that the Council previously gave SBS on an annual basis!
Victory for the entire voluntary sector
This case has raised important questions about the meaning of equality and cohesion and reminded us of the need to maintain solidarity between white and black women in the face of ‘divide and rule’ tactics. We hope that our victory will encourage other grassroots groups to fight back. We believe this case has set a precedent and that the guidance that will be available should enable all specialist groups to fight for the right to exist as autonomous groups.
When we began the process of challenging Ealing Council exactly one year ago, we were not sure where our journey would lead us. We received tremendous support from our users and many, many other individuals and organisations along the way. It is impossible to list everyone who supported us but we really would not have come this far without such encouragement and support. Above all, the support that we received reminded us of our responsibility in building a civil society based on the principles of justice, equality and humanity.
As you will see the High Court case concerned the Race Relations Act, in particular s.70 i.e. the legal obligation for public authorities to comply with the general duty to have due regard to
(i) eliminate unlawful discrimination
(ii) promote equality of opportunity and
(iii) promote good relations
as well as the specific duties, to conduct competent race equality impact assessments at the development stages of policy making. The outline judgement indicates that positive action is an appropriate tool to use to redress economic and social disparities.
The outline explanation of the judgement is largely self explanatory and makes informative and interesting reading. It is a good victory for Southall Black Sisters and provides guidance to all those involved in negotiating on equality impact assessments.
Supplied by: Jagdeep Sandhu, DWP Black Members Committee
Southall Black Sisters v Ealing Council
Background
Southall Black Sisters (SBS) is a community based organization that provides advice, advocacy, counselling and support services to black and minority women in Ealing who experience violence and abuse. Since mid 1980’s Ealing council has provided core funding to Southall Black Sisters
The experience and insights gained through SBS work has led to the organization becoming strategically important in providing advice on policy to local, national, government and international professionals. Earlier this year, Ealing Council threatened to withdraw £100,000 funding grant from SBS, unless it reorganised its services to mainstream its work to cover all women. Ealing was of the view that there was no need to offer specialist services to black and minority women and the services offered should be mainstreamed. Ealing made it quite clear that if SBS wished to continue to offer specialized services to cover the needs of black and minority women, it would withdraw its funding. Without securing additional funding this would have had the effect of closing down SBS.
Ealing’s view failed to take account of the unequal social, economic and cultural context which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for black and minority women to access outside help or seek information about their rights. Neither did Ealing take into account that SBS has helped any woman irrespective of ethnicity when approached.
SBS campaigns in such critical areas of work as forced marriage, honour killings, suicides and self harm, religious fundamentalism and immigration difficulties, especially the ‘no recourse to public funds’ would have been drastically cut back .
The suicide rates of Asian women for example, are already three times the national average and homicides - where abusive men and families kill their wives, daughters or daughters-in-law - are also high within some black and minority communities. In all likelihood, any reduction in services would have seen a rise in suicide and homicide rates amongst black and minority women.
Had Ealing Council been successful, the disparate impact on black women would have been devastating. It would have meant that abused black and minority women, who already face considerable racism, discrimination and cultural pressures would no longer have access to a specialist service.
Southall Black Sisters’ Victory against Ealing Council
‘There is no dichotomy between funding specialist services and cohesion; equality is necessary for cohesion to be achieved.’ Lord Justice Moses
On 18 July at the High Court, in a dramatic turn of events, Ealing Council withdrew their case after one and a half days of a hearing which saw their defence rapidly unravelling. From the outset, it became apparent to the presiding judge, Lord Justice Moses and to all those present in the courtroom including the packed public gallery, that Ealing Council was skating on really thin ice in attempting to justify its decision to cut funding to SBS and to commission instead one generic borough wide service on domestic violence on the grounds of ‘equality’ and ‘cohesion’.
Amongst other things, Ealing Council was charged with the failure to:
Have proper regard to the race equality legislation and other equalities duties or its own policies when it made its decision to end funding to SBS. It failed to carry out a full and proper equality impact assessment and when it did, it was only to justify its decision;
Interpret correctly the race equality legislation by deciding that our very name and constitution (to meet the needs of Asian and African-Caribbean women) was in breach of the Race Relations Act because it ‘excluded’ white women;
Interpret correctly the cohesion agenda by assuming that it was contrary to the race equality legislation.
As the two days wore on, Ealing Council found it difficult to maintain its defence in the light of extensive evidence which showed that it had committed a series of fundamental errors and was in fact close to being regarded as having conducted the matter in ‘bad faith’ – a very serious allegation. The judge was disturbed by the way in which the Council had behaved and was demanding that it account for aspects of its actions which he found ‘blood curdling’. The Council had misinterpreted statistics which showed that black and minority women have rates of reporting domestic violence in Ealing that are disproportionate to their size of population and a crucial letter from the author of a report on gaps in domestic violence services in Ealing was not taken into account by the Council when deciding to provide a generic service, leading her to make a formal complaint.
The Council eventually decided to withdraw its case thereby denying SBS the opportunity of having a full judgement setting out the facts of the case and the litany of failures on the part of the Council – which would have been devastating for the Council and in particular for its leader. But we were able to secure a shorter judgement (pending) – which will take the form of guidance to Ealing and hopefully to all other local authorities so that in future they comply properly with the racial and other equalities legislation. Essentially the principles that will be reiterated are:
Local authorities must have proper regard to the Race Relations Act which also means undertaking proper equality impact assessments at the formative stage of the decision making process;
Cohesion does not mean disregarding the need for equality. Local authorities cannot hide behind cohesion arguments to cut specialist service provision;
Positive action is an essential part of the duty to promote racial equality. Special services run for and by BME groups (whatever their name) are not contrary to the Race Relations Act.
This result of all this is that Ealing Council must now go back to the drawing board and although the outcome could be the same again, hopefully, our victory will make it more difficult for it to ignore the guidance and therefore SBS. The Council has agreed to continue to fund SBS at the previous level until it completes the process of commissioning based on any new decision on domestic violence services.
Ealing Council also agreed to pay the costs of our legal representation and unusually the costs of the Equality and Human Rights Commission which intervened in the case as an interested third party. The total costs are likely to amount to about £100,000 – the amount that the Council previously gave SBS on an annual basis!
Victory for the entire voluntary sector
This case has raised important questions about the meaning of equality and cohesion and reminded us of the need to maintain solidarity between white and black women in the face of ‘divide and rule’ tactics. We hope that our victory will encourage other grassroots groups to fight back. We believe this case has set a precedent and that the guidance that will be available should enable all specialist groups to fight for the right to exist as autonomous groups.
When we began the process of challenging Ealing Council exactly one year ago, we were not sure where our journey would lead us. We received tremendous support from our users and many, many other individuals and organisations along the way. It is impossible to list everyone who supported us but we really would not have come this far without such encouragement and support. Above all, the support that we received reminded us of our responsibility in building a civil society based on the principles of justice, equality and humanity.
We thank you all for making this victory possible.
Southall Black Sisters – Our tradition: Struggle Not Submission.
