KENSINGTON Palace, the official residence of Prince William, has refused to disclose its staff diversity figures, despite other royal households having now done so for the first time.
The Queen’s Buckingham Palace and Princes Charles’s Clarence House have both published data on their levels of ethnic minority staff, and admitted that they are “not good enough”.
The news comes in the wake of revelations that Buckingham Palace banned "coloured immigrants or foreigners" from office roles until at least the late 1960s.
In the 1960s government ministers sought to introduce laws that would make it illegal to refuse to employ an individual on the grounds of their race or ethnicity. But the Queen has been excluded from those equality laws for more than 40 years.
Campaigners say there is absolutely “no justification” for this exemption.
READ MORE: Buckingham Palace banned 'coloured immigrants or foreigners' from office roles
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex accused the royal family of racism in their Oprah Winfrey interview last year, claiming one unnamed member of “the Firm” had raised concerns over the colour of their unborn baby’s skin.
Following the bombshell allegations, Queen Elizabeth’s household has revealed in its annual financial accounts for 2020-2021 that its proportion of ethnic minority employees stands at just 8.5%, with a target of 10% for 2022.
However, this would still be below the proportion of the population who are from an ethnic minority background.
In the UK, around 13% of the population is from a minority ethnic background, according to the latest 2011 Census data.
The Prince of Wales’s household said its proportion of ethnic minority staff was also 8%.
A Clarence House senior spokesperson said: “It is not good enough and we are determined to do better.” They added that 60% of the Clarence House senior management team was female.
Kensington Palace declined to release its staff diversity figures.
A senior Buckingham Palace source told the PA news agency the household had published the figures so there could be “no place to hide”.
“We are not where we would like to be despite our efforts,” they said.
READ MORE: William and Kate's £50k Scotland trip and other taxpayer bills from royal accounts
“It is not that we have not been progressing diversity and inclusion initiatives during this period, it is that simply the results have not been what we would like.
“We have continuous engagement with external advisers, organisations that are at the grassroots level who sit on our steering committee, people who are able to give us a different voice, a different perspective.
“And we recognise that we must do more.
“One of the key points about the publishing of our statistics, which is actually on a voluntary basis, is that there’s no place to hide.
“We fully expect you to come back and hold us accountable for the progress that we made. And if we don’t make the progress, we’ll have to explain why.”
The source described as a “significant step” the disclosing of the figures, which were previously monitored internally.
Royal sources guided previously that the palace was considering appointing a diversity tsar to help assess and improve representation across the royal household in the wake of the Sussexes’ allegations.
But the palace source said on Wednesday there were now no specific plans for such an appointment, although it was not ruled out.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson's £200m royal yacht plans in turmoil over who will foot bill
Graham Smith, chief executive officer of Republic which campaigns for an elected head of state, said: “While it’s welcomed that the palace has published data on its staff diversity, it is still the case that palace staff are not protected from race discrimination, thanks to lobbying from the Queen over the past 40 years.
“There is no justification why anyone should be given an exemption from workplace discrimination laws, particularly our head of state.”
The shift in Diversity Strategy brought in by the Palace in early 2020 includes encouraging employees to make gender equality and inclusion pledges as part of International Women’s Day, employee articles on its intranet on Pride, Ramadan and Black History Month, and a planned “listening exercise” to examine employee experience.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel