Does kindness have the potential to shape how the state and public services treat individuals, and how individuals experience public services? Research by Carnegie UK Trust argues that it not only has the potential to do so, but it must. The implications for administrative justice could be significant, but there are obstacles to overcome – not least the sense that kindness is an unaffordable luxury in times of austerity.
Country music often gets a bad rap as sentimental and depressing. What isn’t usually recognised is that the best of country music evokes a deep emotional attachment wrapped in disappointment and loosely threaded with optimism. It is the Nashville version of the current zeitgeist pleading for a reshaping of the relationship between citizen and state, a radical reimagining that places responsiveness, empathy, and social rights at the very heart of administrative justice.
Empathy and responsiveness have long been at the heart of mediation practice, but now this plea is being made powerfully also among ombuds and the wider administrative justice world as a necessary response to a distinct lack of empathy in the way citizens experience the state. At the Ombudsman Association conference in Belfast in May 2019, Jennifer Wallace from Carnegie UK Trust reported on an investigation carried out by Carnegie Fellow Julia Unwin into kindness in public policy. The report, Kindness, emotions and human relationships: The blind spot in public policy, argues for new thinking about why kindness matters and why we need to address the cynicism that is one of the typical responses to a call for emotions and relationships to play a prominent role in public policy. Building kindness into the citizen-state relationship, and addressing unkind systems, is a radical act, not a sentimental tug on the heartstrings.
The kindness that Unwin’s report explores incorporates emotions, relational care and attention to the way people feel about public services. It builds solidarity, fostering mutuality. It is radical, disruptive, messy. It is not about pity, about fostering a reduced demand for state services, or about ‘random acts of quixotic generosity’.
The urgency of kindness in public policy
Unwin identifies three key drivers in public policy that make the role of kindness an urgent and important matter: austerity is one, exerting pressures on those delivering public services. The other two are related to technology – tech to manage information (eg big data) and tech for managing communication (eg social media). One of her conclusions is that artificial intelligence (AI), as it continues to be rolled out across the public sector in decision-making, will be ‘deeply damaging’ if not met with a prioritisation of emotional intelligence.
There is a need to be bilingual, Unwin writes – to speak both the ‘rational’ language of policy (fair, transparent, evidence-based, systematic) and the ‘relational’ language of emotion (responsive, human, personalised). (At the conference, Wallace gave the example of ‘social capital’ versus ‘friends’ as an illustration of the divide between the lexicons.) Each of these languages on its own has a ‘shadow side’: ‘rational’ language, on the one hand, can prioritise predictability and the use of transactional measures to demonstrate impact and value for money (eg the 10-minute visit from the carer); ‘relational’ language can foster abuse and unfairness when access and ‘voice’ are not uniformly distributed (eg the loudest and most vitriolic Twitter user).
Pressures on kindness include an audit culture of measurability and an emphasis on professionalism. In administrative justice, the predominance of values of efficiency, effectiveness and value for money reflects rational language at the expense of relational language. In the ombuds world, also, these values hold dangerous sway, as does the move towards professionalisation. Introducing the language of emotion and relationships would be a welcome move if it makes the work of case handlers more meaningful and the experience of state decision-making more humane – for example, by allowing case handlers and frontline officials greater autonomy to be authentic in their exchanges with members of the public, by not speaking to a script, and by rewarding emotional intelligence rather than privileging efficiency, as current management models do.
Unwin points out that we often assume that kindness can’t be measured, when instead we choose not to measure it. But there is an inevitable tension between fairness and kindness, a challenge in administrative justice if a shift towards responsive kindness prioritises the individual (and her rights and feelings) over the collective public interest in fairness. That perception of fairness, however – of fairness as a fundamental value of administrative justice – implies there is a shared understanding of what fairness is and a misunderstanding of the ways it can foster inequalities. As Unwin writes, ‘To imply that consistency guarantees the fairest response ignores … the massive inequalities of voice and agency’.
Challenging the grip of austerity
The implications for administrative justice of a ‘kindness drive’ could be significant, but there are obstacles to overcome – not least the sense that kindness is an unaffordable luxury in times of austerity. But austerity’s grip should not remain unchallenged, and powerful arguments have been made (by UN rapporteurs past and present) that austerity is a political choice, not a necessity, and that by embedding social rights into accountability mechanisms, including ombuds, we might repair the social contract that a decade of austerity has broken.
Unwin argues that what’s needed is a shift in power that will lead to an increase in trust in government and institutions. Such a shift arises from a new social contract, one that recognises both individual capabilities and interests as well as those that are shared and that invests in human relationships rather than key performance measures. In this, Unwin shares a vision set out starkly by Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, in his report to the UN on poverty in the UK. Alston notes that ‘much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos’ as successive governments have pursued the ideological agenda of austerity. In the face of the erosion of the post-war social contract in Britain, there are elements of optimism, particularly in the way kindness is incorporated into legislation by devolved administrations in the UK trying to mitigate the worst impacts of austerity.
Legislative recognition of social rights should be a part of this reimagining of the citizen-state relationship, Alston argues, echoing a call made by Paul Hunt, Chief Human Rights Commissioner, New Zealand and formerly UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, for a sectoral approach to embedding social rights. In a recent Political Quarterly article, Hunt suggests that a realistic approach is to engage with the everyday places of housing, schools, hospitals and ‘to clothe each explicit social right with sectoral law, policy and practice’ – embedding, for example, the right to adequate housing into legislation and in statutory guidance, developed through a bottom-up and participatory process, and in policy-making, inspection and adjudication (which would include the practices of ombuds). This sectoral approach could be reinforced by recasting accountability as a loosely linked network of sectoral institutions that together work to monitor, review and take remedial action on social rights.
Walking the line
Amid the pessimism, there is inspiration to be found for ombuds, mediators and others involved in addressing citizen grievance. There is also inspiration for researchers who are interested in exploring the role of emotions in the delivery of public services, in state administration, and in the mechanisms for holding the administration to account. It isn’t a path of sunshine and rainbows, and it has its dark side, but we could perhaps channel our inner Johnny Cash to walk the emotionally intelligent line between optimism and despair:
Well, there’s things that never will be right I know
And things need changin’ everywhere you go
But ’til we start to make a move to make a few things right
You’ll never see me wear a suit of white
Ah, I’d love to wear a rainbow every day
And tell the world that everything’s okay
But I’ll try to carry off a little darkness on my back
Till things are brighter, I’m the Man In Black
Making rights worth having: the report of the Lords Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and DisabilityPosted: 27 April 2016
‘We recommend restoring the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s power to arrange the provision of conciliation services for non-employment discrimination claims. The service specification should provide for a range of delivery methods to ensure it is accessible, including provision of face-to-face conciliation, and the service should take direct referrals from the Equality Advisory and Support Service or its replacement.’
Last month the House of Lords Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability reported on its inquiry into the Act and concluded that government inaction is failing disabled people. The inquiry, which started in June 2015, received 144 responses to its Call for Evidence and heard oral evidence from 53 witnesses. The published report sets out the committee’s conclusions on a range of issues including the Public Sector Equality Duty, reasonable adjustments, access to services in transport, housing, and leisure facilities, and enforcement and access to justice. It highlights the barriers to challenging disability discrimination in terms of cuts to legal aid, court and tribunal fees, and procedural changes and notes that rights without enforcement are meaningless: ‘Rights which are unenforceable are not worth having.’
It was particularly heartening to see the Committee’s criticism of the Coalition Government’s weakening of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and its abolition of the EHRC’s power to arrange independent mediation (conciliation) for non-employment cases. I worked as an independent mediator with the original Disability Conciliation Service, set up by the Disability Rights Commission, and its successor, the Equalities Mediation Service. Over the years, from 2001 to 2013, we handled many hundreds of claims alleging disability discrimination in the provision of goods and services.
This provision, the report states, was one of the casualties of the Red Tape Challenge, and it was abolished, with other measures in the Act, because it was considered to place unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on business. The report suggests that the Government should have given the same consideration to measures placing an unnecessary or disproportionate burden on disabled people, and Baroness Deech, chair of the Committee, said: ‘Intended to reduce the regulatory burden on business, the reality has been an increase in the burden on disabled people.’
It’s useful to be reminded of the background of the mediation provision and its demise. From the report:
‘447. The Disability Rights Commission developed a conciliation service to which any complaint arising out of an alleged failure to provide goods or services in a non-discriminatory way under the DDA could be referred for resolution. When the Disability Rights Commission was replaced by the EHRC, section 27 of the Equality Act 2006 gave the EHRC the power to provide conciliation services.
448. In March 2011 the Coalition Government, as part of its examination of public bodies, issued a Consultation Paper putting forward a number of suggestions for changes to the role and functions of the EHRC. One of the questions asked was: “Do you think the Government should repeal the EHRC’s power to make provision for conciliation services, as part of the process of focussing the EHRC on its core functions?” Of the 293 responses received, 61 agreed, 206 disagreed and 26 were not sure. Despite this the Government concluded:
“We have now decided to repeal the EHRC’s power to make arrangements for the provision of conciliation in non-workplace disputes. We do not believe that arranging conciliation services for individual cases fits with the EHRC’s strategic role, or that it is necessary in light of the range of good quality, accessible and effective mediation provision already available throughout England and Wales and Scotland.”
Accordingly section 27 of the Equality Act 2006 was repealed by section 64(1)(b) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 with effect from 25 June 2013.
449.The EHRC wrote: “The removal (which we opposed) of our statutory power to arrange the provision of conciliation services for non-employment cases is a particular concern for disabled people given that the majority of non-employment discrimination claims are disability cases.” That concern was shared by the Discrimination Law Association, who told us in written evidence: “DLA members advising and supporting disabled people in non-employment discrimination claims have called for re-instatement of the EHRC power to establish a conciliation service.” Most forcefully Nick O’Brien, when asked which two recommendations he would like to see this Committee make, said: “The Disability Rights Commission had a power to arrange for a conciliation service in respect of goods, facilities and services disputes. The need for that, or something similar, has become more acute now that the prospect of taking cases to court—civil cases in the county courts and even in tribunals—is so significantly reduced.”
The committee also considered whether a new disability ombud scheme should be created. Evidence to the committee noted the plethora of existing ombudsman schemes: As our colleague Nick O’Brien stated, ‘the landscape is already quite cluttered … The challenge is to make sure that the existing ombudsmen more selfconsciously use the powers they already have to embed equality and human rights in what they do.’ The committee was persuaded that yet another ombudsman is not needed and that, instead, the mandates of other ombudsmen should be widened explicitly to cover disability issues.
‘461. We recommend that the Government amend the mandates of those regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen that deal with services most often accessed by disabled people to make the securing of compliance with the Equality Act 2010 a specific statutory duty.
Another very useful recommendation relates to data on non-employment discrimination claims. It has been impossible to identify the number of such claims made in county courts because these are not specified. The report recommends:’that HM Courts and Tribunals Service be required to collect from all county courts and from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and to make publicly available, data relating to disability discrimination claims separately from other claims, as they do in employment tribunals.’
The report overall makes fascinating reading. I look forward to seeing how the Committee’s recommendations are taken forward.
by Varda Bondy and Margaret Doyle In October 2014, we launched (together with Carolyn Hirst) a mapping study titled ‘The use of informal resolution approaches by ombudsmen in the UK and Ireland ’. We discussed at length whether to use the words ‘ombud/s’ or ‘ombudspersons’ rather than ‘ombudsman/men’, but decided on the latter to avoid the title itself becoming the centre of attention rather than the content of the report. However, we felt compelled to touch on this question at the launch, which was attended by a number of ombudspeople as well as academics. After presenting one aspect of our findings, concerning the multiplicity of terms used by schemes to describe the same processes and identical terms to describe different ones, we added a closing remark on the problematic matter of terminology in the use of the term ‘ombudsman’ itself. This included an assertion that the word ‘man’ in…
View original post 2,633 more words