The Commission for Racial Equality has launched a huge investigation into regeneration bodies. But why regeneration? And what might they uncover? Herpreet Kaur Grewal investigates.

Race and equality have always been contentious issues in policy circles. The debate around this area has intensified over the past year, with the Government signalling a desire to move away from multiculturalist policies and launching a commission for integration and cohesion.
Adding to this flurry of activity, last month the Government’s race watchdog the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) launched an investigation into whether public bodies responsible for physical regeneration projects were discriminating against ethnic minorities (R&R, 15 September, p6). Bodies could face legal action if they are not promoting racial equality in relation to their regeneration functions, says the CRE. However, the investigation will not mention organisations when it publishes a report next year.
While the investigation is expected to focus primarily on local planning authorities and development agencies in England, Wales and Scotland, other public bodies such as national regeneration agency English Partnerships and housing regulator the Housing Corporation will also be examined. Both bodies are required to comply with the race equality duty, which came into effect in 2002 and states that public bodies have a requirement to consult on and monitor the promotion of race equality and ensure public access to information (see box).
The investigation team will also work with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), which decides the policy and legal frameworks within which most regeneration projects work. And, while they are not the subject of investigation, voluntary and community sector bodies and private groups involved in regeneration are also being encouraged to contribute evidence. According to Sian Hughes, the CRE’s lead officer on the investigation, it’s important that these groups contribute because third sector organisations reflect the effects of regeneration projects on communities, while private firms show how procurement practices work. “(The investigation is) seeking a 360 degree look at regeneration and all elements of forming policy,” she says.
Hughes stresses the investigation is not about strengthening the race equality duty – the guidance is already “well-developed” – but about applying it to a specific sector and recording best practice. “If we know what success looks like, it will be easier (for other bodies) to get that success,” she says. The CRE’s call for evidence brief says the team is looking for projects where there have been “issues directly concerning race equality” or that “may have affected one racial group differently from another”.
It will come as no shock to regeneration practitioners that they are obliged to conform to the race equality duty – the legislation has been in place for four years. The question hanging over the investigation is, simply: why now? A CRE spokeswoman says the investigation was prompted “by concerns among some communities that physical regeneration projects do not always have a positive effect on their lives and businesses”. But some campaigners in south London claim the catalyst has been a long-running dispute in the borough of Southwark – an assertion the CRE denies.
In December 2005, London mayor Ken Livingstone, urged the commission to investigate Southwark Council for not “properly involving” black locals in its regeneration plans (R&R, 6 January, p6). The Black Awareness Group (BAG), which describes itself as a south London consortium of businesses, claims it highlighted the council’s “discriminative practices” in 2002 and lobbied the CRE in 2005 to look into the council’s regeneration policies.
BAG’s coordinator and founder, Raymond Stevenson, says he is “without doubt” that the nationwide investigation by the CRE has been prompted by activity in the borough.
Stevenson owned a nightclub business on Camberwell New Road that he says had to close after delays in the council’s handling of his application for permanent planning permission, and the granting to housebuilder Fairview of planning consent for flats on a neighbouring site. The case prompted a critical District Auditor’s report in 2004, which led to the suspension of two council officers, who have subsequently left the council. Stevenson is now taking his claim to the High Court.
“(Regeneration) is about money and who’s got the loudest voice,” says Stevenson. “Commercial developers have got the loudest voices.”
Lucia Hinton, another BAG coordinator, and a director of the firm that owned the nightclub, says that a further 30 black and minority ethnic-run firms on the same site were not informed about the development. “Other white businesses adjacent to the site were told directly about the development,” she says. “Why weren’t the black businesses?”
In a posting on the Black Londoners Forum website, the BAG says that it is targeting “all councils who wilfully, maliciously or recklessly compromise BME businesses in regeneration zones. We also intend to highlight the fact that regeneration budgets are not being spent proportionally on incorporating BME businesses and the need of the black and ethnic communities”.
Certainly, this mission statement and the terms of the CRE inquiry do seem to have something in common.
Rejecting Stevenson’s claims, a spokesman for the council says: “We do not believe that the former directors of Imperial Gardens nightclub have a case against the council and we are rigorously defending their £9.1million claim in the High Court. At no stage has the council believed, or been provided with evidence to prove, that the business went into liquidation because of any action by the council.”
A further council source also questions how representative of Southwark’s BME businesses BAG is, claiming that it is driven primarily by the council’s adversaries in the current High Court case. The source also said that the nightclub and the neighbouring flats were not in an area covered by any council regeneration programme.
Russell Profitt, head of social renewal at Southwark, admits that a series of reports exposed the council’s “poor consultation mechanisms”, but adds: “It’s been four years and commonsense says we would not keep making the same mistakes.”
While regeneration bodies are aware of the requirements of the race equality duty, there is some difficulty in designing an effective compliance system.
The main difficulty, says Dr Mashuq Ally, head of equalities and diversity at Birmingham City Council, is modifying systems to keep up with changes in the make-up of communities caused by immigration patterns. As these changes take place, communities’ needs also change. He says this is made even more complex by the fact that different ethnic groups will be at different levels of development. “Groups have differing needs,” he says.
Ally adds that a lot of deprivation is focused in areas with a high BME population. For this reason, race equality has to be “embedded in the regeneration process”. He also believes that more money should be spent supporting community groups that bring together members of an area’s different communities as a way of breaking down barriers and challenging perceptions.
While equality campaigners welcome the CRE investigation, they say it could have been instigated earlier. Rob Neill, caretaker director of human rights body the 1990 Trust, says: “It’s no surprise that (some bodies) aren’t fulfilling the duty and that structural inequalities are going unaddressed. The legislation… has been gathering dust on the shelf (since being introduced).”
Even though the race equality duty is compulsory, Ally says public authorities may have been “complacent because they have not been under scrutiny”.
If local authorities feel that is unfair, the CRE inquiry will at least give them the chance to prove their case.
THE RACE EQUALITY DUTY: WHAT IT MEANS FOR PUBLIC BODIES
The aim of the race equality duty is to make the promotion of racial equality central to the work of public authorities. The general duty also expects public authorities to take the lead in promoting equality of opportunity and good race relations, and preventing unlawful discrimination. In practice, this means that listed public authorities must take account of racial equality in the day-to-day work of policy-making, service delivery, employment practice and other functions. The ways in which a public authority can ensure it has an effective system in place to meet the duty include:
1. Assessing and consulting on the likely impact of its proposed policies on the promotion of race equality. Authorities are expected to consider the implications for racial equality of everything they do, from allocating council housing to closing or opening a hospital or a school. For a public authority involved in regeneration, this may mean consulting the public and, particularly, involving ethnic minorities at all stages.
2. Monitoring its policies for any adverse impact on the promotion of race equality and dealing with complaints about the way it meets these duties or handles racial equality issues. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) works with key partners to monitor how public bodies are complying with the race equality duty. This is done through examining samples of published information and reports required by race equality schemes; through the work of inspection and audit bodies; through evidence of possible failure to comply brought to the CRE’s attention; and through particular pieces of research conducted or commissioned by the CRE, such as the formal regeneration investigation.
3. Publishing the results of such assessments and consultation. The CRE has produced an assessment template for race equality schemes and employment to ensure a consistent approach to identifying non- or partial compliance with the specific duty to publish a race equality scheme. The template may also be useful to public authorities for self-assessment of their schemes.
4. Ensuring public access to information about the authority and services it provides, and making sure that everyone, whatever their ethnic background, has access to this.
5. Training staff in connection with the duties imposed by the Act and ensuring that they carry out an adequate review.