Building a fairer
Britain: Reform of
the Equality and
Human Rights
Commission
March 2011
�
Contents
ContEnts
�
FOREWORD
1
ExEcutivESummaRy
3
intRODuctiOn–abOutthiScOnSultatiOn
8
chaptER1: EhRc’ScOREFunctiOnS
10
chaptER2: nOn-cOREactivitiES
18
chaptER3: achiEvinggREatERvaluEFORmOnEyanDaccOuntability
25
chaptER4: OuRappROachtOREFORm&nExtStEpS
28
annExa: SummaRyOFcOnSultatiOnquEStiOnS
30
annExb:
32
pROFORmaFORRESpOnSES
REFEREncES
49
iii
Foreword
FoREwoRd
�
Equality and human rights are fundamental to building a strong economy and a free and fair
society. this Government is committed to tackling the barriers to equal opportunities and
social mobility that hold individuals back and to restoring the rights of individuals in the face of
encroaching state power.
As we set out in the Equality strategy, ‘Building a Fairer Britain’, we need to take a new approach
– one that recognises that we cannot tackle the problems we face simply by calling for new
legislation and more central prescription. we need to work with all sectors of society, including
businesses, the voluntary sector and wider civil society to effect lasting change. And we need an
approach that recognises people’s complex identities and individuality, and promotes equality of
opportunity and greater freedom for all.
this new approach is reflected in the original aims of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC), which brought together the Commission for Racial Equality, the disability Rights
Commission, and the Equal opportunities Commission into a single cross-cutting body to protect,
enforce and promote equality and human rights for all. Unfortunately, since its establishment in
2007, the Commission has struggled to deliver against its remit and provide value for money.
decisions taken by the last Government undoubtedly made its task more complex but the EHRC
has not been cost effective for the taxpayer.
this consultation document sets out our plans to reform the Equality and Human Rights
Commission to ensure the EHRC no longer carries out those activities which we do not consider
to be their core activities and which can be done better or more cost effectively by others. our
1
vision is that the Equality and Human Rights Commission should become a valued and respected
national institution, focusing on its core role as a strong, modern equality regulator and Unaccredited national Human Rights Institution. It should champion effective implementation of
equality and human rights law, work strategically with a wide range of partners to build capacity,
hold Government and others to account for their performance on equality and human rights, build
and use a strong evidence base. the reforms also set out how the Commission needs to ensure it
safeguards and uses public money wisely.
we look forward to hearing your views.
Rthontheresamay
ministerforWomenandEqualities
2
lynneFeatherstonemp
ministerforEqualities
Executive summary
ExECUtIvE sUMMARy
�
contexttoreform
1.
3.
the Government remains of the view
that there is a clear legal need for an
independent equality regulator and
national Human Rights Institution.
However, whilst the Commission has
carried out some important work that
has deepened our knowledge and
understanding of equality and human
rights, overall its performance to date
has been weak. It has struggled to
deliver against its policy remit, for
instance attracting criticism from the
Joint Committee on Human Rights on its
failure to integrate human rights into its
work. At the same time it has not been
able to demonstrate that it is delivering
value for taxpayers’ money, resulting
in the qualification of its first two sets
of accounts. the sheer breadth of the
Commission’s remit, combined with errors
made in the process of setting up and the
transition agreements put in place by the
previous Government, have contributed to
the underperformance of the Commission
to date.
4.
therefore the decision was taken to retain
the Commission but substantially reform it
to focus it on the areas where only it can
add value, to increase its accountability
to the Government, Parliament and the
public, and to improve its effectiveness and
value for money.
A key commitment of the coalition
programme for government is to ‘reduce
the number and cost of quangos’.1 In order
to deliver this the Government carried
out a major review of public bodies last
year. the review’s aims were to increase
accountability for actions carried out on
behalf of the state, to cut out duplication
of activity, and to discontinue activities
which are no longer necessary. the
future of the Equality and Human Rights
Commission (EHRC) was considered as part
of this review.
2.
the EHRC was established in october
2007 with a very broad remit. It replaced
and took over the work of the Equal
opportunities Commission, Commission
for Racial Equality and disability Rights
Commission and was also given
responsibility for promoting equality and
tackling discrimination in respect of age,
sexual orientation and religion or belief,
promoting good relations between groups
and providing institutional support for
human rights. the Commission was tasked
with taking a cross-cutting approach to
equality and human rights issues and given
a number of new powers and duties.
3
5.
we want the Equality and Human Rights
Commission to become a valued and
respected national institution. to do so,
we believe it must focus on its core role
as an independent equality regulator,
working in accordance with Hampton
principles for modern regulators,2 and as
a Un-accredited national Human Rights
Institution; and it must be able to show
that it is using public money wisely.
•�
working in partnership with organisations
to highlight good practice and build
their capacity to eliminate unlawful
discrimination, advance equality of
opportunity and foster good relations.
•�
Monitoring compliance with equality
legislation and, in partnership with civil
society organisations, holding Government
and public bodies to account for their
performance on equality, for example
on their compliance with the new public
sector Equality duty.
•�
Intervening to address non-compliance
including by bringing or supporting
individuals to bring strategic test cases to
clarify and enforce the law.
•�
Maintaining a robust evidence base to
inform and drive improvements in equality
practice and against which progress towards
a more equal society can be monitored.
•�
Helping the Government to evaluate and
monitor the effectiveness of the Equality
Act 2010.
9.
we propose to repeal the General duty at
s.3 of the 2006 Act, because we believe
it creates unrealistic expectations about
what an equality regulator and national
Human Rights Institution can achieve.
And we are seeking views on whether
a separate ‘good relations’ remit is still
necessary or appropriate in the light of the
Commission’s activities in the last three
years and the strengthened requirements
on public bodies to promote good
thisconsultationsetsoutourplansto
reformthecommissiontoachievethisaim,
andseeksviewsonourapproach.
proposalsforreform
6.
we propose legislative and non-legislative
reforms in three key areas:
i) To set out more clearly the EHRC’s core
functions as an independent equality
regulator and National Human Rights
Institution;
7.
we wish to make a number of changes
to the EHRC’s statutory framework, the
Equality Act 2006, in order to transform
EHRC into a body which is better focused
on its core functions and makes improved
use of taxpayers’ money.
4
8.
we propose to amend section 8 of the
Equality Act 2006 to focus the Commission
on the following core equality functions:
•�
Promoting awareness of equality legislation
so that individuals, employers and others
understand their rights and obligations.
Executive summary
relations, which EHRC will be subject to
and have responsibility for regulating.
10. the Government wants EHRC to define
and fulfil its human rights remit more
effectively. By narrowing the overall
breadth of the Commission’s remit, we
believe we will enhance its capacity to
develop and deliver a programme to
promote and protect human rights. we
do not consider it necessary to amend the
duties set out in section 9 of the Equality
Act 2006 to achieve this.
11. In carrying out its functions, we want
the EHRC to work with a wide range of
partners, and in particular strengthen
its links with the business community
and voluntary sector. we also attach
importance to the EHRC retaining a
strong and distinct presence in wales
and scotland, working closely with the
welsh Assembly Government, the scottish
Government and the scottish Human
Rights Commission.
Chapter 1 provides more detail of our proposals
for redefining the Commission’s core functions,
including the proposed legislative changes.
ii) To stop non core activities and, where
appropriate, make alternative provision,
where they can be done better and/or more
cost-effectively by Government or other
civil society/private sector providers;
12. As part of the Cabinet office’s review
of public bodies, the Government
considered what activities presently being
carried out by the Commission are not
required to deliver its core functions – as
an independent equality regulator and
national Human Rights Institution – and/or
may duplicate activity elsewhere.
13. In particular, we are seeking views on
whether the Government should repeal the
Commission’s power to make provision for
conciliation services. this does not fit well
with the Commission’s strategic regulatory
role; there is a risk of duplication given
the range of mediation services out there;
and there are concerns about the costeffectiveness of the Commission’s provision
to date.
14. Because of concerns about the reach,
effectiveness and value for money of
the Commission’s provision of equality
information, advice and support, a
separate Government review of these
activities was carried out to inform the
spending Review. In light of that review,
the Government has decided to stop
funding the Commission’s provision of
its helpline and grants programmes from
31st March 2012 – when the Commission’s
existing grants programmes were due to
come to a natural end. Instead, the review
concluded that for:
•�
general information & advice for citizens –
the Government should commission a new,
equivalent service from the private sector
or civil society;
5
•�
provision of legal and strategic grants
programmes to voluntary organisations
– the Government intends to establish
an alternative funding stream to better
support the voluntary and community
sector in a fair, transparent and joined-up
way that fits with the Government’s wider
support of the sector and its promotion of
social action to build a more inclusive and
cohesive society.
15. the Government is aware that the EHRC’s
helpline was also used to support a
complaints handling service for disabled
air travellers. In light of the decision to
replace the Commission’s helpline, the
Government is seeking views on whether
it may be more appropriate for the Air
transport Users Council (AUC) – the
consumer body and complaints handler
for other aviation consumer matters – to
provide this service in the future.
16. the Government Equalities office will
engage with key partners in developing our
proposals in these areas.
and effectiveness, and secure appropriate
accountability both to Ministers and
Parliament.
18. the key legislative reforms proposed are:
•�
a statutory requirement for EHRC to lay
an annual business plan before Parliament
enabling Ministers to ensure that the
business plan provides sufficient detail as to
how the EHRC intends to spend its budget;
•�
a statutory requirement for EHRC’s Chair
and CEo to have regard to using public
money efficiently and effectively;
•�
to make explicit that the secretary of state
may impose a financial sanction, where
EHRC can be shown to have mis-spent
taxpayers’ money;
•�
to make clear that as a publicly funded
body EHRC is subject to Government
public expenditure restrictions.
19. the key non-legislative changes already
being implemented are measures to:
Chapter 2 provides more detail.
iii) To clarify the Commission’s relationship
to Government and strengthen further its
governance and systems to provide greater
transparency, accountability and value for
money
6
17. In the light of the experience of the
Commission’s first three years, we are also
proposing legislative and non-legislative
changes to improve EHRC’s use of
taxpayers’ money, increase its efficiency
•�
achieve the Budget reductions, set out in
spending Review 2010, including through
a move to shared ‘back office’ services;
•�
improve corporate governance, including
work to revise the Framework document
setting out EHRC’s responsibilities in
managing public money.
•�
increase accountability for the
Commission’s operational performance
against its business plan and its financial
Executive summary
these changes are set out in full in Chapter 3.
23. Implementation of non-legislative reform
proposals, including the changes necessary
to meet the budget reductions set out in
the spending Review, has already begun.
Ourapproachtoreform&nextsteps
Chapter 4 provides more detail on our approach
to reform.
management, by making clear the financial
consequences of mismanagement.
20. the Government is also inviting views on
how best to effect these reforms.
21. we believe that a combination of legislative
and non-legislative reform will ensure
that Government, the Commission and
Parliament have a clear and shared view
about the nature and extent of the Equality
and Human Rights Commission’s role: the
“what” which will leave the Commission
the necessary discretion on the “how”,
while increasing accountability on its
performance. setting out our reforms
clearly and openly in legislation will help to
maintain the Commission’s independence
as an equality regulator and ‘A’ status
national Human Rights Institution.
22. where we consider legislative change is
desirable, powers to make the relevant
regulations have been included in
the Public Bodies Bill currently before
Parliament. we would expect to consult
on draft regulations this summer, although
this proposed timetable is dependent on
the progress of the Public Bodies Bill and
the availability of Parliamentary time.
7
IntRodUCtIon
�
1.
•�
•�
•�
this consultation seeks views on a range
of legislative and non-legislative proposals
which aim to:
set out more clearly the EHRC’s core
functions as an equality regulator and
national Human Rights Institution;
stop non-core activities and where
appropriate make alternative provision
where they can be done better and/or
more cost-effectively by Government or
other civil society/private sector providers;
•�
voluntary and community sector
organisations.
•�
trade Unions.
Comments from other interested parties are
also welcomed.
territorialscope
3.
clarify the Commission’s relationship
to Government and strengthen further
its governance and systems to provide
greater transparency, accountability and
value for money.
intendedaudience
2.
8
this consultation will be of particular
interest to:
•�
Equality organisations.
•�
Human rights organisations.
•�
Business representatives.
•�
Public sector organisations.
the EHRC’s remit covers the whole of
Great Britain (England, wales and scotland)
although its human rights functions are
more limited in scotland where there
is a separate scottish Human Rights
Commission. these proposals will therefore
apply to the Commission’s work in all three
countries. the Government will consult the
welsh Assembly Government and scottish
Government on these proposals to ensure
they reflect the needs and circumstances of
those nations.
impactassessments
4.
we have carried out a regulatory impact
assessment. this is being published
separately at www.equalities.gov.uk.
5.
we have also carried out an initial
assessment of the impact of our proposals
on age, disability, gender, gender
reassignment, race, religion or belief and
Introduction
sexual orientation equality, and human
rights. this is being published separately at
www.equalities.gov.uk. we will continue to
discuss and assess the likely impact of our
proposals with interested parties over the
course of this consultation.
10. Please tell us whether you are responding
as an individual or are representing the
views of an organisation. If you are
responding on behalf of an organisation,
please tell us whom the organisation
represents and, where possible, how the
views of members have been sought.
Durationofthisconsultation
queriesaboutthisdocument
6.
this consultation begins on 22march2011
and ends on 15June2011. Any views
received after the closing date may not be
considered or reflected in our analysis.
howtorespond
7.
A summary of the consultation questions
is provided at annexa. we would be
grateful if you could use the electronic
version of the response proforma to
submit your comments; this is available
for download from the Government
Equalities office website at
http://www.equalities.gov.uk
8.
Responses should be sent by email to:
[email protected]
or by post to:
�
Louise sutton
�
Government Equalities office
�
Zone G10, 9th Floor
�
Eland House
�
Bressenden Place
�
London sw1E 5dU
�
9.
11. Any queries about this document should
be made to:
name: Louise sutton
telephone: 0303 444 4092
Email: [email protected]
12. If you require an alternative accessible
format of this document, please send your
request to:
Email: [email protected]
(please state ‘Accessible format request’ in
the subject line)
Post: EHRC Reform Consultation
Accessible Formats
Government Equalities office
Zone G10, 9th Floor, Eland House
Bressenden Place, London sw1E 5dU
Please ensure that your response reaches
us by 15June2011.
9
CHAPtER 1: EHRC’s CoRE FUnCtIons
�
1.1 we want to focus the Equality and Human
Rights Commission on its core functions –
the areas where it alone can add value – as
an equality regulator and national Human
Rights Institution. this chapter sets out the
Government’s view of what these functions
should be, and makes proposals for
amending the EHRC’s statutory framework
to ensure it better reflects these functions.
EhRc’sexistingequalityandhumanrights
duties
1.2 Currently, EHRC is subject to a series of
duties relating to its equality and human
rights remits.
1.3 section 3 imposes a ‘general duty’ on
EHRC to:
“…exercise its functions… with a view
to encouraging and supporting the
development of a society in which:
a)� people’s ability to achieve their
potential is not limited by prejudice or
discrimination;
b)� there is respect for and protection of
each individual’s human rights;
c)� there is respect for the dignity and
worth of each individual;
10
d)� each individual has an equal
opportunity to participate in society;
e)� there is mutual respect between
groups based on understanding and
valuing of diversity and on shared
respect for equality and human
rights.”
1.4 section 8 imposes a series of duties on
EHRC relating to equality and diversity:
“the Commission shall…:
a)� promote understanding of the
importance of equality and diversity;
b)� encourage good practice in relation to
equality and diversity;
c)� promote equality of opportunity;
d)� promote awareness and understanding
of rights under the equality
enactments;
e)� enforce the equality enactments;
f/g) work towards the elimination of
unlawful discrimination and
harassment.”
Chapter 1: EHRC’s core functions
1.5 section 9 imposes a series of duties on
EHRC relating to human rights:
“the Commission shall…
c)� work towards the elimination of
prejudice against, hatred of and
hostility towards members of groups;
and
a)� promote understanding of the
importance of human rights;
d)� work towards enabling members of
groups to participate in society
b)� encourage good practice in relation to
human rights;
c)� promote awareness, understanding
and protection of human rights;
d)� encourage public authorities to comply
with section 6 of the Human Rights
Act 1998.
there is an associated power at section 19 of
the Equality Act 2006, which, in pursuance of
its duties at section 10, gives the Commission a
power to:
“make, co-operate with or assist in
arrangements –
a)� for the monitoring of kinds of crime
affecting certain groups;
1.6 section 10 imposes a good relations duty:
“the Commission shall….
a)
promote understanding of the
importance of good relations –
i) between members of different
groups, and
ii) between members of groups and
others,
b)� encourage good practice in relation to
relations;
i) between members of different
groups, and
ii) between members of groups and
others,
b)� designed to prevent or reduce crime
within or affecting certain groups;
c)� for activities (whether social,
recreational, sporting, civic,
educational or otherwise designed to
involve members of groups)
1.7 this chapter also contains proposals
relating to section 12 – the duty to
monitor progress.
pROpOSalOnE–Repealingthe
general Duty
1.8 the Government proposes to repeal
the general duty at section 3 (para 1.3).
this duty is intended to set the societal
context within which EHRC should carry
out its functions, but in the Government’s
11
view it has no specific legal function
and does not help to clarify the precise
functions the EHRC should carry out as
an equality regulator and national Human
Rights Institution. It creates unrealistic
expectations – both positive and negative
– about what the EHRC, as an equality
regulator and public body performing
certain defined EU and human rights
functions, can achieve.
question1:DoyouagreethatSection3
shouldberepealed?
pROpOSaltWO–amendingtheequalities
dutiesatsection8toclarifyEhRc’score
equalityfunctions
1.9 the Government considers that the core
functions EHRC should carry out as an
equality regulator, and the activities it
should undertake to fulfil these functions,
are as follows:
12
a) Promoting awareness of equality
legislation, so that individuals, employers
and others understand their rights and
obligations.
this function involves the Commission
working with regulators, inspectorates
sector and trade bodies to produce tailored
advice, non-statutory guidance and Codes
of Practice that enable individuals and
organisations to understand their rights and
obligations under the legislation and the
practical steps they need to take in order to
comply with the legislation.
b) Working in partnership with
organisations to highlight good practice
and build their capacity to eliminate
unlawful discrimination, advance
equality of opportunity and foster good
relations.
Partnership working to develop and
promote agreed sector standards and make
available information on good practice
and benchmarking will enable the EHRC
to magnify its impact despite reducing
budgets. ‘Good practice’ can be defined
as practice which helps organisations to
tackle the barriers that hold people back
and advance equality of opportunity. this
work could include the promotion of
toolkits, construction of tailored databases,
establishment of networks of organisations
that want to learn from each other, and
other benchmarking and comparison
techniques.
Chapter 1: EHRC’s core functions
c) Monitoring compliance with equality
legislation and, in partnership with
civil society organisations, holding
Government and public bodies to
account for their performance on
equality, for example on their compliance
with the new Public Sector Equality duty.
EHRC will continue to have a range of tools
at its disposal to monitor levels of compliance
with the equality enactments, for example
the ability to undertake investigations into
suspected breaches of the law and assess
public authorities’ compliance with the
forthcoming Equality duty. EHRC should
work in partnership with other regulators
and inspectorates, trade and sector bodies
to ensure they monitor compliance in
the course of their regulatory activities.
EHRC should also build the capacity of the
voluntary and community sectors to use the
transparency requirements built into the new
public sector Equality duty to hold public
bodies to account for their performance
in eliminating discrimination, promoting
equality of opportunity and fostering good
relations.
d) Intervening to address non-compliance
including by bringing or supporting
individuals to bring strategic test cases to
clarify and enforce the law.
there is an important and continuing role
for the Commission to challenge unlawful
discrimination, using its existing enforcement
powers. the Commission has powers to
instigate Judicial Reviews, issue public sector
Equality duty compliance notices, intervene
in legal cases and provide legal assistance, as
in the recent case of Preddy and Hall v Bull3
for example. EHRC should continue to take
a strategic approach to enforcement action,
choosing cases by reference to a range of
criteria such as the severity or persistence
of the breach being tackled, the likelihood
of the case benefiting a large number of
people, and the value for taxpayers’ money
which legal action will provide.
13
e) Maintaining a robust evidence base
to inform and drive improvements in
equality practice and against which
progress towards a more equal society
can be monitored.
EHRC has an important role to play as
a centre of expertise on equality issues,
gathering together the evidence about
inequalities affecting the groups protected by
anti-discrimination law. EHRC can draw not
only on traditional research/survey evidence
but also the intelligence it gains through
its functions of monitoring and enforcing
the law, including information gained
through its inquiries and work with other
regulators and inspectorates and groups
representing organisations in the public,
private and voluntary sectors. this evidence
base will underpin EHRC’s work across all
of its functions and enable it to report to
Parliament on progress being made towards
a fairer society, in compliance with its duty to
monitor progress in section 12 of the Equality
Act 2006.
14
f) Helping the Government to evaluate
and monitor the effectiveness of the
Equality Act 2010.
the knowledge gathered through the
regulatory functions and activities set out
above puts EHRC in a strong position to
make recommendations to Government
about the effectiveness of the Equality Act
2010 and whether it should, in EHRC’s
view, be amended, repealed or further
consolidated. In addition, EHRC should advise
Government and Parliament objectively
about the likely equality implications of
proposed laws, but without duplicating
or usurping the role of others, notably
campaigning organisations or lobby groups.
1.10 Currently, section 8 of the Equality Act
2006 (at para 1.4) contains some duties
that are very broad in nature and do not
equate to specific regulatory functions
that EHRC must carry out. For example,
duties to promote understanding of the
importance of equality and diversity and
promote equality of opportunity can be
fulfilled by undertaking a very wide range
of activities, including some which are not
regulatory in character. For example, the
EHRC’s summer camps for young people
may promote equality of opportunity
and understanding of the importance
of equality and diversity but they do not
contribute to the fulfilment of EHRC’s core
role as a regulator of equality law.
Chapter 1: EHRC’s core functions
1.11 we therefore propose to remodel EHRC’s
statutory equality duties (section 8 of the
Equality Act 2006) so that they better
reflect the list of functions set out in para
1.9. these changes are intended to clarify
EHRC’s remit by making more explicit the
core functions which the Government
considers the Commission should carry out
as an equality regulator.
question2:Doyouagreethatremodelling
thedutiesats.8oftheEqualityact2006
tomirrortheroleandfunctionssetoutin
para1.9ofthischapterwillhelptofocus
EhRconitscorefunctionsasanequality
regulator?ifnot,whatdoyouthinkEhRc’s
corefunctionsshouldbe?
1.12 we also propose to amend the section 12
duty to monitor progress, so that it requires
the Commission to publish a report on
progress being made every five years
rather than the current three. this will
tie into the Parliamentary cycle, be more
cost-effective, and ensure that subsequent
reports capture meaningful change over
time. Currently, the duty in section 12 is
linked to progress towards a society with
the characteristics specified in section 3.
In light of our proposal to repeal section
3, we propose to specify in section 12
what we want EHRC to measure. In broad
terms this will be progress towards a fairer
society and will be consistent with EHRC’s
equality and human rights measurement
frameworks.
question3:Doyouagreewithourproposal
toamendthesection12dutysothatit:
a)specifiestheaimsandoutcomeswhich
EhRcisrequiredtomonitorprogress
against;and,
b)requiresareporteveryfiveratherthan
threeyears,totieintotheparliamentary
cycleandenablereportstocapture
meaningfulchangeovertime?
pROpOSalthREE–SupportingtheEhRcto
enhanceitsfocusonhumanrights
1.13 the human rights duties set out in section
9 of the Equality Act 2006 (see paragraph
1.5 above) were formulated to capture the
functions set out in the Un’s 1993 Paris
Principles which establish the competence
and responsibilities of national Human
Rights Institutions. these duties set the
framework for the EHRC to define and
fulfil its human rights remit and meet
the requirements of its nHRI status. the
Government does not consider that these
duties need to be amended
1.14 we believe that narrowing the overall
breadth of the Commission’s remit will
enhance its capacity to develop and
deliver a programme to promote and
protect human rights. taken together
with the proposals to strengthen
accountability, and the way in which
Commissioners are appointed, we believe
that these changes will bring about a step
change in the Commission’s performance
on human rights.
15
question4:Doyouagreethattheproposals
tofocusthecommissiononitscore
functions,aswellasthemeasuressetout
inchapter3toincreasethecommission’s
accountabilityfortheitsperformance,
will helpthecommissionfulfilitshuman
rightsremit?ifnot,whatfurtherchanges
doyousuggest?
pROpOSalFOuR–Removingthe
commission’sgoodrelationsduty
(section 10)
1.15 the type of work which EHRC carries out
to discharge this duty is as follows:
•�
a grants programme funding voluntary
sector organisations to promote good
relations;
•�
work to promote respect for good relations
(and human rights) such as its young
Brits@Art competition and leadership
development work with young people;
•�
work to build a “Map of Gaps”5 looking
at local authorities domestic violence
services; joint regulatory work with ofsted
to address homophobic bullying; an inquiry
into disability-related harassment;
•�
It is also planning to carry out a ‘triennial
Review’ to measure society’s progress
towards achieving good relations.
1.16 the Government has concerns about the
value for money of some of the work
done to date (particularly in relation
to the Commission’s strategic grants
programme – see proposal 6). we are
also concerned about the potential for
overlap and duplication between the social
and educational activities undertaken
by the Commission and work done by
local authorities, schools and a range of
voluntary organisations – for example
Fawcett, stonewall, and the Runnymede
trust – to foster good relations and
promote community cohesion. And we
consider that much of the Commission’s
most valuable work in this area, for
example in relation to its inquiry into
disability-related harassment, could be done
as part of its core equality duties, or human
rights work to promote dignity and respect.
1.17 the Government believes that the
promotion of good relations between
its citizens is important. that is why
we will shortly be bringing into force a
new public sector Equality duty in April
2011, which includes a duty on public
authorities to have due regard to the
need to foster good relations between
individuals in different groups. ‘Fostering
good relations’ is explained as including
in particular the need to tackle prejudice
and promote understanding. the new duty
will cover all of the groups protected by
anti-discrimination law.6 the EHRC will be
responsible for regulating the new public
sector Equality duty, as well as itself being
subject to the duty when exercising all of
its functions.
16
Chapter 1: EHRC’s core functions
1.18 the Government believes the Commission
will be most effective in promoting good
relations by concentrating on its regulation
of the new Public sector Equality duty. In
this way, it can make a unique contribution
to fostering good relations, by:
•�
supporting public authorities to understand
what it means to foster good relations;
•�
building the evidence base on where public
authorities should focus their efforts, by
exposing where work needs to be done eg
through Map of Gaps;
•�
facilitating the sharing of good practice
between organisations on how best to
promote good relations.
question5:Doyouagreethatweshould
removethecommission’sgoodrelations
function,andtheassociatedpowerat
section19?ifnot,whynot?
17
CHAPtER 2: non-CoRE ACtIvItIEs
�
2.1 this chapter sets out our proposal
that the Commission should no longer
commission a conciliation service, and
our proposal to amend the legislative
framework accordingly. It also explains our
decision to stop funding the Commission
for its helpline and grants programmes
and sets out our proposals to engage with
partners on how best to make alternative
provision. these are essentially funding
decisions. we do not propose any changes
to the statutory framework to bring these
into effect.
2.2 the Government is aware that the EHRC’s
helpline was also used to support a
complaints handling service for disabled
air travellers. In light of the decision to
replace the Commission’s helpline, the
Government is seeking views on whether
it may be more appropriate for the Air
transport Users Council (AUC) – the
consumer body and complaints handler for
other aviation consumer matters to provide
this service in the future.
legislativeframework
2.3 the Equality Act 2006 gives the
Commission powers in respect of:
•�
18
Information & Advice (section 13)
•�
Grants (section 18)
•�
Conciliation in non-employment cases7
(section 27)
•�
Legal assistance (section 28)
we propose to repeal the power to make
provision for conciliation in non-employment
cases (section 27). we do not propose any
changes to the remaining powers.
2.4 subject to the outcome of this
consultation, we would seek to change
sI 2007/1895 which names EHRC as
the complaint handler for disabled air
passengers.
pROpOSalFivE–Repealingthe
commission’spowertomakeprovisionfor
conciliationservices
2.5 the EHRC has a power to make provision
for conciliation in non-employment cases,
as a means of securing compliance with
the law without resort to the courts.
the Government supports conciliation
generally as a means of reducing pressure
on the courts, and the financial burden on
individuals of involvement in court cases.
But we are not convinced that this is an
appropriate service for the EHRC to fund
from its grant-in-aid because:
Chapter 2: non-core activities
i)
ii)
both Government and EHRC itself
envisage that EHRC will continue to
move away from routine casework
and focus its enforcement actions on
strategic cases which are likely to have
widespread impact. Conciliation is an
important means of resolving disputes
without resort to the courts but tends
to be focused on securing redress for
the individual in cases which are not
exceptional and where there is no
need to set a legal precedent. this
routine focus does not fit well with the
‘strategic regulatory role’ envisaged for
the EHRC.
there is a risk of duplication given
that a range of mediation services are
already available. For example, for
England and wales, the national
Mediation Helpline (nMH) can at
present arrange a fixed-fee, timelimited mediation appointment with
an accredited provider pre-litigation,
and Her Majesty’s Court service’s
small Claims Mediation service, once
a claim has been issued. the Ministry
of Justice is in the process of working
with stakeholders and partners,
including the Government Equalities
office, on the development of an
alternative mediation referral service
to replace the nMH in october 2011.
It is also in the process of converging
existing online content on the full
range of civil dispute resolution
options available to the public on
directgov8, including mediation, use
of ombudsmen, industry arbitration
schemes and where appropriate use of
statutory regulators. It is unclear that
the Commission’s Equalities Mediation
service has a unique role in this
landscape.
iii) it is clear that the EHRC’s conciliation
work has not been cost effective to
date: costs for this service were nearly
£5,000 per case in 2009-10 – this is
much higher than the average cost per
case of other mediation providers. For
example, while recognising that the
service paid for by EHRC is qualitatively
different to that of the national
Mediation Helpline and on-site, the
Government’s agreed fixed tariffs for
mediation per case via its national
Mediation Helpline are significantly
less – between £600 and £850 plus
vAt, depending on the value of the
amount being claimed.9
2.6 For these reasons, the Government is
considering whether the EHRC’s power
to make provision for conciliation services
should be removed as part of the process
of focusing it on its core functions.
question6–Doyouthinkthegovernment
shouldrepealthecommission’spowerto
makeprovisionforconciliationservices,
aspartoftheprocessoffocussingthe
commissiononitscorefunctions?
19
pROpOSalSix–anewsystemforequality
andhumanrightsinformation,adviceand
support
review also included the Commission’s
strategic grant’s programme, which is
discussed as part of proposal seven. this
review followed concerns both from the
national Audit office and from partner
organisations about the programme’s
reach, effectiveness and value for money.
background
2.7 the EHRC currently provides the following
support for the provision of equality
information, advice and support:
•�
ahelpline which gives information and
general (i.e. non legal) advice to, in the
main, individuals.
•�
alegalgrantsprogramme that awards
money for:
i)� publiceducation – paid to voluntary
organisations (e.g. a Race Equality
Council) to educate individuals about
their rights;
ii)� legaladviceandadvocacy – paid
to advice organisations (e.g. a Citizens
Advice Bureau) to provide legal advice
and representation to individuals on
equality issues;
iii)� capacityandcapabilitybuilding
– paid to umbrella organisations (e.g.
Citizens Advice and the Law Centres
Federation) to provide training and
support to their advisors, caseworkers
and lawyers.
2.8 In August 2010, the Government began
a review of the Commission’s provision of
equality information, advice and support
to inform the spending Review 2010,
as well as the Public Bodies Review. this
20
2.9 Key conclusions of the review were:
•�
The Commission’s helpline – was not costeffective when compared with alternative
providers, and did not help inform the
EHRC’s regulatory functions, for example
on strategic test cases. It was not well
known amongst either the public at large
or other advice-giving bodies which has
prevented those bodies from making
effective referrals to the EHRC’s helpline.
•�
The Commission’s grants programmes –
were poorly administered, and in the case
of the strategic grants programme, poorly
targeted leading to the qualification of the
Commission’s accounts.
A full copy of the Government’s Review of
Information, Advice and support is available on
www.equalities.gov.uk.
nextsteps
2.10 In light of the review’s findings that neither
the helpline nor the legal or strategic grants
programmes represented value for money,
or supported the Commission in fulfilling its
core regulatory functions, the Government
has decided to stop funding the EHRC
to deliver these activities at the end of
Chapter 2: non-core activities
March 2012. this is when EHRC’s existing
grants programmes were due to come
to a natural end. the Government does
not propose to make any amendments
to the Commission’s statutory framework
as a result of the above changes, as
we recognise that the Commission will
still have an important role in providing
information and advice to a range of
organisations, for example on the Equality
Act 2010, and will occasionally need to
give out money, for example to individuals
pursuing a legal claim under section 28 of
the 2006 Act [Legal assistance].
2.11 However, we are clear that there remains
a need for high quality and timely
information, advice and support on equality
and human rights issues. the Government
Equalities office therefore proposes to
deliver a new system of equality and human
rights information, advice and support. this
new system will be:
•�
citizenfocused – discrimination cases
most often occur within the context of
another issue e.g. employment, housing
or perhaps education. Its important that
citizens are able to get advice relevant to
all their issues quickly and efficiently;
•�
costeffective – providing improved value
for money.
Helpline & complaints handling service for
disabled passengers
2.12 we propose to commission an improved
information and general advice10 service.
we are clear that information from the
new advice service will need to flow to the
EHRC (as Regulator) to enable it to identify
immediate discrimination challenges and/
or strategic test cases that it may wish to
intervene in.
2.13 we are aware that the helpline has been
used by the Equality and Human Rights
Commission to deliver its responsibilities
as the complaints handling body for
accessibility issues for users of airlines
(a function inherited from the disability
Rights Commission). In light of the decision
to replace the Commission’s helpline,
the Government believes that it is more
appropriate for the Air transport Users
Council (AUC), part of the Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA), to provide the complaints
handling service for disabled passengers in
the future.
2.14 CAA/AUC staff already have experience
of complaint handling for air passenger
rights11 and a good knowledge of air
transport. their work is funded by the
aviation industry through the CAA’s
charging schemes and they have sound
working relationships with stakeholders.
Making AUC responsible for this function
will create a more comprehensive
complaint handling service for aviation
consumer issues and help contribute
towards refocusing EHRC on its core
regulatory functions. we would be grateful
for your views in principle on this proposed
change. subject to your views, the Civil
Aviation Authority, which is responsible
for the AUC, would consult on options for
21
implementing this while keeping costs to
a minimum. Public education
2.15 Educating individuals about their rights
and responsibilities remains an important
part of the drive to eliminate discrimination
and deliver equality of opportunity. we
will support this function through a
programme of public education targeted
to the most disadvantaged groups on
their equality and human rights. this will
help people to identify if they have been
discriminated against and consequently
seek help.
2.16 the EHRC as part of its ‘A’ status as a
national Human Rights Institution will need
to continue to deliver a programme to
protect and promote human rights.
Legal advice and Advocacy
2.17 not all problems can be resolved informally
and in some instances speedy access to
legal advice is paramount. However, we
do not believe that the state should fund
legal advice and advocacy for claimants
regardless of their income or financial
means as is the case in some instances with
the current EHRC legal grants programme.
therefore, instead of continuing to provide
a separate funding stream for legal advice
and advocacy on discrimination cases, we
propose that support is solely delivered
through civil legal aid. In addition to this,
where cases are of strategic importance,
22
the EHRC can still provide legal support
to claimants.
2.18 As set out in Proposals for the Reform
of Legal Aid in England and wales,
the Government has consulted on
reducing the scope of civil legal aid
in a range of categories. Government
has however proposed retaining civil
legal aid for all unlawful discrimination
cases currently within the scope of the
scheme. therefore the consultation
proposed that even if a discrimination
case forms part of a category of law
which if the reductions were implemented
would no longer fall within the scope of
civil legal aid (for example employment),
funding would still be retained for
those cases. Government recognises
that currently discrimination is not
recognised as a discrete category of
contract for the purposes of civil legal
aid funding and we will need to consider
any practical issues arising in terms of the
provision of advice in light of this.
Capacity and capability building
2.19 Cases of discrimination are often not
self evident and building the capacity
and capability of front line advisors, case
workers and lawyers to identify these
cases is part of the EHRC’s core role as a
regulator. However, we believe this work
would be performed more effectively if
the EHRC directly engages in capacity
building itself, rather than funding other
organisations to do this through a grants
programme. Building on the progress
Chapter 2: non-core activities
that has already been made, we want to
see the EHRC working with and through
‘umbrella’ organisations such as the Law
Centre Federation and Citizens Advice – to
reach advisors, caseworkers and lawyers;
to provide training and/or accreditation
of training; and to share and disseminate
good practice.
question7–Doyouagreewiththe
proposalssetouttoprovideanewsystem
ofinformation,adviceandsupport?ifnot,
whatchangestothesystemwouldyou
recommend?
question8–Whatshouldanewcitizen
–focused,costeffectiveinformationand
generalistadviceservicelooklike?
question9–howcangovernmentbest
providepubliceducationondiscrimination
andhumanrights,targetedonthemost
disadvantagedgroups?
question10–isthereanythingthat
distinguishesdiscriminationcasesfrom
othercaseseligibleforcivillegalaidthat
wouldjustifyfurtherpublicfundingfor
support?
question11–Doyouagreewiththe
proposalfortheairtransportuserscouncil
(auc),partofthecivilaviationauthority
(caa),toprovidethecomplaintshandling
servicefordisabledpassengersinthe
future?ifnot,whynot?
pROpOSalSEvEn–SupportingSocial
action
2.20 In addition to its legal grants programme,
the EHRC runs a ‘strategic grants’
programme, which is aimed at tackling
discrimination and promoting good
relations and human rights more widely.
For example, funding has been provided
to organisations to increase interaction
and understanding between groups and
communities that do not ordinarily mix or
where particular tensions exist.
2.21 As set out in paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 the
government has concluded that EHRC
should no longer run a strategic grants
programme from April 2012 because
the grants were poorly administered and
poorly targeted. the Government does not
propose to make any amendments to the
Commission’s statutory framework as a
result of the above changes.
2.22 whilst the EHRC’s strategic grants
programme was not particularly effective,
the government does believe that
supporting voluntary and community
groups with a focus on tackling
discrimination and delivering equality
remains important. For example, we
know that vCs organisations can play
a key role (whether through advocacy
or through their local community
knowledge) in ensuring that services are
designed to meet the needs of the most
disadvantaged groups. we therefore
propose to replace the EHRC’s strategic
grants programme, with a more focused
23
funding stream to support civil society
organisations that work to promote
equality and human rights.
2.23 we are aware that there are multiple
funding streams across Government geared
at supporting civil society organisations
working in the equalities area. we have no
wish to duplicate efforts elsewhere and we
will be working with other Government
departments to identify how these
other funding streams can be used most
effectively to best support civil society.
question12:howcouldthenew
governmentfundingstreammost
effectivelysupportcivilsociety
organisationstopromoteequalities,
human rightsandtacklediscrimination?
24
Chapter 3: Achieving greater value for money and accountability
CHAPtER 3: ACHIEvInG GREAtER vALUE
FoR MonEy And ACCoUntABILIty
3.1 the EHRC has not been able to
demonstrate that it is delivering value
for taxpayers’ money, resulting in the
qualification of its first two sets of
accounts. while some progress has been
made, acknowledged by the Comptroller
and Auditor-General among others,
further steps are necessary to improve the
EHRC’s use of taxpayers’ money, increase
its efficiency and effectiveness, and
secure appropriate accountability both to
Ministers and to Parliament. this chapter
sets out a range of both legislative and
non-legislative measures to achieve this.
Legislative changes
3.2 we propose the following amendments to
the Equality Act 2006:
•�
to introduce a statutory requirement for
EHRC to lay its Annual Business Plan before
Parliament, and to give the secretary of
state a power over its form and timing.
this would not give the secretary of state
the power to dictate the substance of the
plan but would enable Ministers to ensure
that the business plan provided sufficient
detail as to how EHRC intended to spend
its budget, and how it will measure the
success of its activities. this will increase
transparency and better enable Ministers,
Parliament and the public to judge the
value for money of EHRC’s activities and its
success in achieving specified outcomes,
without compromising the EHRC’s
independence.
•�
to introduce a statutory requirement for
EHRC’s Chair and CEo to have specific
regard to using public money efficiently
and effectively.
•�
to make clear that the secretary of state
may impose a financial sanction where
EHRC can be shown to have mis-spent
taxpayers’ money (in particular, where its
accounts have been qualified by nAo).
•�
Make explicit that as a publicly funded
body, EHRC is subject to Government
public expenditure restrictions. this
is in line with the provisions for other
bodies which have to exercise functions
independently of Ministerial control such
as the Charities Commission, and will
make clear that the EHRC’s status as an
independent arm’s length body, charged
with holding the Government and all
public bodies to account for their record
on equality and human rights, does not
exempt it from Government financial and
management controls and requirements
to increase efficiency, accountability and
transparency.
25
question13–Doyouagreewithour
legislativeproposalstoincreasethe
commission’stransparency,accountability,
andvalueformoney?
Non-legislative changes underway
3.3 the measures below relate to the
operational management of the EHRC, and
are not part of the consultation proposals.
However, they are set out here to provide
a more complete picture of change at the
Commission:
3.4 the EHRC is looking to reduce substantially
its staff complement over the spending
Review period. this reduction will reflect:
26
•�
Changes to EHRC’s ways of working,
including greater partnership and
collaborative working with other regulators
and inspectorates, and organisations in
the public, private and voluntary bodies,
including for example co-production of
guidance.
•�
the reduced need for corporate support
staff through a move to shared ‘back
office’ services, where corporate functions
such as payroll and It would be shared
with government departments for
example. the extent and timing of moves
towards shared services will partly be
dependent on central, Cabinet office-led
initiatives, as well as existing contractual
arrangements.
3.5 the Commission has also confirmed that
it will be rationalising its accommodation
to release further savings. the number
of offices will be reduced to two11 in
England, one in scotland and one in
wales and the proportion of staff who are
based in Manchester rather than London
will increase. EHRC’s property costs are
currently around £4.5m per year. By
ensuring the most efficient use of office
space, coupled with the reduction in staff
numbers, we estimate that this can be
brought down to below £2m by the end of
the spending Review period.
3.6 Along with other public bodies, Cabinet
office has confirmed that the EHRC will be
subject to new Cabinet office requirements
on non-departmental Public Bodies
(ndPBs). this includes new rules on senior
pay and pay transparency, a requirement
for rigorous and regular review, a new
corporate governance framework for
executive ndPBs and compliance with
the requirements set out in the treasury’s
guidance on Managing Public Money,
which is due to be revised.
3.7 As part of this work the GEo, working
closely with the Ministry of Justice,
will review and revise the GEo – EHRC
Framework document so that it meets the
requirements of the new Cabinet office
framework described above.
Chapter 3: Achieving greater value for money and accountability
3.8 to improve corporate governance at the
Commission, the Government is also
working with the Commission to:
•
review the role and responsibilities
of the Chair, to give him or her more
explicit responsibility for holding the
EHRC’s Executive team to account for its
performance both in terms of delivering
against EHRC’s remit and ensuring financial
and management propriety.
•
improve the capacity of the Board to
support the Chair in corporate matters, as
well as policy and delivery. we want to see
a smaller board with stronger corporate
skills and experience – as well as knowledge
and expertise in equality and human rights
matters, gained in the private as well as the
voluntary and public sectors. we will try to
achieve this as vacancies arise.
•
enhance the ability of the Chair to hold
the senior Management team (sMt) to
account for financial and management
propriety, by ensuring that all members
of the sMt should have a corporate
governance objective. this will enable the
Chair and the Board to take appropriate
3.9 Additionally, Ministers have been clear that
they will not tolerate poor performance,
withholding money from EHRC’s 2010/11
budget for the Commission’s failure
to meet its deadline for production of
guidance on the Equality Act 2010, and
making clear that financial sanctions
will be considered in the event of future
qualifications of the EHRC’s accounts.
3.10 the GEo will continue to update the
strategic Improvement Plan it has agreed
with treasury and the EHRC. A number of
the measures set out in the plan link with
the legislative proposals set out above,
for example, making explicit that EHRC
is subject to Government expenditure
controls and increasing transparency
around EHRC’s work, and enabling closer
scrutiny by Government, interested
organisations and citizens of how and why
EHRC chooses to allocate its budget to
different activities and how it measures its
success in achieving its objectives.
action if a member of the sMt fails to
meet this objective adequately.
•
embed financial considerations in decisionmaking at the Commission. For example
by ensuring the finance director attends all
meetings of the sMt.
27
CHAPtER 4: oUR APPRoACH to
REFoRM & nExt stEPs
4.1 we wish to make a number of changes
to the EHRC’s statutory framework, the
Equality Act 2006, in order to transform
EHRC into a body which is better focused
on its core equality and human rights
functions and makes improved use of
taxpayers’ money.
4.2 A combination of legislative and nonlegislative reform will ensure that
Government, the Commission, and
Parliament have a clear and shared view
about the nature and extent of the Equality
and Human Rights’ Commission’s role: the
“what” which will leave the Commission
the necessary discretion on the “how”,
while increasing accountability on its
performance.
4.3 setting out our reforms clearly and openly
in legislation will help to maintain the
Commission’s independence as an equality
regulator and ‘A’ status national Human
Rights Institution.
4.4 Because we consider legislative change
is desirable, we have included powers to
make the relevant regulations in the Public
Bodies Bill currently before Parliament.
http://services.parliament.uk/
bills/2010-11/publicbodieshl.html
28
question14–Doyouagreewithour
approachoflegislativeandnon-legislative
reform?
nextsteps
4.5 In order to help shape the new system on
equality, information advice and support,
over the coming weeks we will be holding
a series of engagement events with a wide
range of partners in England, wales and
scotland.
4.6 we intend to consult on draft regulations
this summer, although this proposed
timetable is dependent on the progress of
the Public Bodies Bill and the availability of
Parliamentary time.
4.7 Implementation of non-legislative reform
proposals, including the changes necessary
to meet the budget reductions set out in
the spending Review, have already begun.
4.8 the Minister for the Cabinet office has
announced that in future, all ndPBs will
be subject to triennial reviews by their
sponsor department. these reviews will
assess the continuing need for each ndPB
and whether its function and form remains
appropriate. where it is agreed that a
body should remain in existence as an
ndPB, the review will assess the control
Chapter 4: our approach to reform & next steps
and governance arrangements in place
to ensure that the body is complying fully
with Government policy on ndPBs. we
expect the first triennial review to take
place in this Parliament.
29
AnnEx A: sUMMARy oF ConsULtAtIon qUEstIons
question1: do you agree that section 3 should
be repealed?
question2: do you agree that remodelling the
duties at s.8 of the Equality Act 2006 to mirror
the role and functions set out in paragraph 1.9
of chapter 1 will help to focus EHRC on its core
objectives as an equality regulator? If not, what
do you think EHRC’s core functions should be?
question3: do you agree with our proposal to
amend the section 12 duty so that it:
a) specifies the aims and outcomes which EHRC
is required to monitor progress against; and,
question7: do you agree with the proposals
set out to provide a new system of information,
advice and support? If not, what changes to the
system would you recommend?
question8: what should a new citizen
– focused, cost effective information and
generalist advice service look like?
b) requires a report every five rather than three
years, to tie into the Parliamentary cycle and
enable reports to capture meaningful change
over time?
question9: How can government best provide
public education on discrimination and human
rights, targeted on the most disadvantaged
groups?
question4: do you agree that the proposals
to focus the Commission on its core functions,
as well as the measures set out in Chapter 3
to increase the Commission’s accountability for
its performance will help the Commission fulfil
its Human Rights remit? If not, what further
changes do you suggest?
question10: Is there anything that
distinguishes discrimination cases from other
cases eligible for civil legal aid that would justify
further public funding for support? If yes, what
form do you believe that support should take?
question5: do you agree that we should
remove the Commission’s good relations
function? If not, why not?
30
question6: do you think the Government
should repeal the Commission’s power to make
provision for conciliation services, as part of the
process of focussing the Commission on its core
functions?
question11: do you agree with the proposal
for the Air transport Users Council (AUC), part
of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), to provide
the complaints handling service for disabled
passengers in the future? If not, why not?
Annex A: summary of consultation questions
question12: How could the new Government
funding stream most effectively support civil
society organisations to promote equalities,
human rights and tackle discrimination?
question13: do you agree with our legislative
proposals to increase the Commission’s
transparency, accountability, and value for
money?
question14: do you agree with our approach
of legislative and non-legislative reform?
31
AnnEx B: PRoFoRMA FoR EHRC
REFoRM ConsULtAtIon REsPonsEs
An electronic copy of this document can be found at www.equalities.gov.uk
theconsultationcloseson15June2011. Please let us have your response by that date.
when responding, it would be helpful if you could provide the following information.
Please fill in your name and address, or that of your organisation if relevant. you may withhold
this information if you wish, but we will be unable to add your details to our database for future
consultation exercises.
contactdetails:
Please supply details of who has completed this response.
Response completed by (name):
Position in organisation (if appropriate):
name of organisation (if appropriate):
Address:
Contact phone number:
Contact e-mail address:
date:
32
AnnEx B: PRoFoRMA FoR EHRC REFoRM ConsULtAtIon REsPonsEs
confidentiality
Under the Code of Practice on open Government, any response will be made available to the public
on request, unless respondents indicate that they wish their views to remain confidential. If you wish
your response to remain confidential, please tick this box and say why. If we receive a request for
disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an
assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality
disclaimer generated by your It system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the department.
I would like my response to remain confidential (please tick if appropriate):
Please say why
In what capacity are you responding (please tick if appropriate)?
As an individual
on behalf of an organisation
As an employer
other (please specify)
33
note:
•�
In addition to the completed proforma, you can also send other supporting information if you
so wish.
Completed forms should be e-mailed to the following address:
[email protected]
If you are posting the form please send to:EhRcReformconsultationResponses
C/o Louise sutton
Government Equalities office
Zone G10, 9th Floor Eland House
Bressenden Place
London sw1E 5dU
thank you for completing this response form.
34
AnnEx B: PRoFoRMA FoR EHRC REFoRM ConsULtAtIon REsPonsEs
EHRC’s core functions
pROpOSalOnE–Repealingthegeneral
Duty
question1: DoyouagreethatSection3shouldberepealed?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
disagree
not sure
Please explain why –
35
pROpOSaltWO–amendingtheequalitiesdutiesatsection8toclarify
EhRc’scoreequalityfunctions
question2: Doyouagreethatremodellingthedutiesats.8oftheEqualityact2006
tomirrortheroleandfunctionssetoutinpara1.9ofchapter1willhelptofocusEhRc
onits corefunctionsasanequalityregulator?ifnot,whatdoyouthinkEhRc’score
functions shouldbe?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
Please explain why –
36
disagree
Unsure
AnnEx B: PRoFoRMA FoR EHRC REFoRM ConsULtAtIon REsPonsEs
question3:Doyouagreewithourproposaltoamendthesection12dutysothatit:
a) specifiestheaimsandoutcomeswhichEhRcisrequiredtomonitorprogressagainst;
and
b) requiresareporteveryfiveratherthanthreeyears,totieintotheparliamentarycycle
andenablereportstocapturemeaningfulchangeovertime?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
disagree
not sure
Please explain why –
37
pROpOSalthREE–SupportingtheEhRctoenhanceitsfocusonhumanrights
question4: Doyouagreethattheproposalstofocusthecommissiononitscore
functions,aswellasthemeasuressetoutinchapter3toincreasethecommission’s
accountabilityfortheitsperformance,willhelpthecommissionfulfilitshumanrights
remit?ifnot,whatfurtherchangesdoyousuggest?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
Please explain why –
38
disagree
not sure
AnnEx B: PRoFoRMA FoR EHRC REFoRM ConsULtAtIon REsPonsEs
pROpOSalFOuR–Removingthecommission’sgoodrelationsduty(section10)
question5:Doyouagreethatweshouldremovethecommission’sgoodrelations
function,andtheassociatedpoweratsection19?ifnot,whynot?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
disagree
not sure
Please explain why –
39
EHRC’s non-core activities
pROpOSalFivE–Repealingthecommission’spowertomakeprovisionfor
conciliation services
question6:Doyouthinkthegovernmentshouldrepealthecommission’spowertomake
provisionforconciliationservices,aspartoftheprocessoffocussingthecommissionon
itscorefunctions?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
Please explain why –
40
disagree
not sure
AnnEx B: PRoFoRMA FoR EHRC REFoRM ConsULtAtIon REsPonsEs
pROpOSalSix–anewsystemforequalityinformation,adviceandsupport
question7:Doyouagreewiththeproposalssetouttoprovideanewsystemof
information,adviceandsupport?ifnot,whatchangestothesystemwouldyou
recommend?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
disagree
not sure
Please explain why –
41
question8:Whatshouldanewcitizen focused,costeffectiveinformationand
generalistadviceservicelooklike?
Please explain –
42
AnnEx B: PRoFoRMA FoR EHRC REFoRM ConsULtAtIon REsPonsEs
question9:howcangovernmentbestprovidepubliceducationondiscriminationand
humanrights,targetedonthemostdisadvantagedgroups?
Please explain –
43
question10:isthereanythingthatdistinguishesdiscriminationcasesfromothercases
eligibleforcivillegalaidthatwouldjustifyfurtherpublicfundingforsupport?
Please explain –
44
AnnEx B: PRoFoRMA FoR EHRC REFoRM ConsULtAtIon REsPonsEs
question11:Doyouagreewiththeproposalfortheairtransportuserscouncil(auc),
partofthecivilaviationauthority(caa),toprovidethecomplaintshandlingservice
for disabledpassengersinthefuture?ifnot,whynot?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
disagree
not sure
Please explain why –
45
pROpOSalSEvEn–SupportingSocialaction
question12:howcouldthenewgovernmentfundingstreammosteffectivelysupport
civilsocietyorganisationstopromoteequalities,humanrightsandtacklediscrimination?
Please explain –
46
AnnEx B: PRoFoRMA FoR EHRC REFoRM ConsULtAtIon REsPonsEs
achievinggreatervalueformoneyandaccountability
question13:Doyouagreewithourlegislativeproposalstoincreasethecommission’s
transparency,accountability,andvalueformoney?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
disagree
not sure
Please explain why –
47
Ourapproachtoreform&nextsteps
question14:Doyouagreewithourapproachoflegislativeandnon-legislativereform?
Please place a cross in the appropriate box
Agree
Please explain why –
48
disagree
not sure
References
REFEREnCEs
�
1.� Programme for Government:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_
dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/
documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf
2.� http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45019.pdf
3.� Mr Preddy and Mr Hall were refused a room
at a B&B because they were gay.
4.� http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/wales/
croeso-project/
5.� Mapping of specialised services for women
who are victims of violence:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/keyprojects/map-of-gaps/background-to-themap-of-gaps-report/
9.� http://www.nationalmediationhelpline.com/
costs-of-mediation.php
10. General advice is bespoke advice on
discrimination and human rights provided
by trained advisors (not lawyers) geared at
helping individuals to resolve their problems
wherever possible informally, or else where
further legal intervention is necessary,
ensuring individuals are quickly handed over
to those that can help them further.
11. For example, the denied Boarding and
Cancelling of flights Regulations
12. Following transfer of the helpline to an
alternative provider.
6.� with the exception of marriage/civil
partnership.
7.� Mediation in employment discrimination
cases is available from Acas and can also be
provided by judges within the employment
tribunals.
8.� directgov is the Government’s primary online
destination for all public-facing content and
the primary online destination for citizens to
interact with Government online, enabling
a substantial reduction in the number
of Government websites by April 2011,
and forms part of the wider transforming
Government Programme
49
.
Forfurthercopiesofthisdocumentortolearn
moreabouthowGovernmentisprogressingon
thesecommitments,pleasevisittheGovernment
EqualitiesOfficewebsiteatwww.equalities.gov.uk
Jn404645
© Crown copyright 2011