CORRESPONDENCE
FROM THE
CHAIR OF
THE COMMITTEE
TO HOME
SECRETARY
HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO BUILDING
A FAIRER BRITAIN: REFORM OF THE EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Thank you for your letter alerting me to the fact
that you have launched a consultation on the future of the Equality
and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which will run until 15 June
2011. As you are aware, the Home Affairs Committee has recently
undertaken a short inquiry into the Work of the Home Office with
respect to Equalities. We took relevant evidence from Scope, Stonewall
and Equanomic UK, as well as the Commission itself, and would
like to bring the following points to your attention. We are less
able to comment with regard to the human rights aspects of the
Commission's work and I am therefore copying this letter to the
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
SETTING OUT
MORE CLEARLY
THE EHRC'S
CORE FUNCTIONS
AS AN
INDEPENDENT EQUALITY
REGULATOR AND
NATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS INSTITUTION
You propose for the Commission to focus more on its
core functions as an equality regulator and National Human Rights
institution, assisting organisations in complying with their statutory
duties and taking action where they do not. Our witnesses agreed
that these should be primary roles for the Commission. Ms Neckles,
of Equanomics UK, stated that "strong regulatory and enforcement
functions are absolutely pivotal" and Dr Bush, representing
Scope, said that the "core things" that the Commission
should be doing to support disabled people in society are "keeping
legislation under review, but also making sure that it can take
and facilitate test cases that really explore gaps in the discrimination
legislation."
The Commission has had a number of achievements in
this area; in the words of Mr Summerskill, of Stonewall, "some
important test cases have been taken." However, witnesses
emphasised that the Commission could and should make better use
of its enforcement powers.
WE CONSIDER
THAT THERE
IS INDEED
SCOPE FOR
THE COMMISSION
TO PLACE
MORE FOCUS
ON ITS
CORE FUNCTIONS
AS AN
EQUALITY REGULATOR;
THIS SHOULD
INCLUDE GREATER
USE OF
ITS ENFORCEMENT
POWERS.
STOPPING NON-CORE
FUNCTIONS AND,
WHERE APPROPRIATE,
MAKING ALTERNATIVE
PROVISION, WHERE
THEY CAN
BE DONE
BETTER AND/OR
MORE COST-EFFECTIVELY
BY GOVERNMENT
OR OTHER
CIVIL SOCIETY/PRIVATE
SECTOR PROVIDERS
You propose for the Commission to cease a number
of its current functions, including repealing its power to make
provision for conciliation services and stopping funding for the
helpline and the grants programme which awards money for public
awareness, legal advice and advocacy, and capacity and capability
building.
Witnesses had mixed views on the success of the helpline
in its current form. Mr Summerskill told us that there "seems
to be very little evidence" that it has been servicing lesbian,
gay and bisexual people. However, Dr Bush stated that its closure
would have a "significant impact" on disabled people
and organisations for disabled people, who do use the hotline
when they face discrimination.
In terms of provision of grants, Mr Summerskill was
"not sure there is evidence of a strategic oversight of how
those grants are being used to deliver specific outcomes around
the country that make a real difference to people's lives."
Ms Neckles also considered that the Commission has been weak in
terms of provision of advice around the law, and guidance and
strategic liaison.
WE HAVE
HEARD CONCERNS
ABOUT THE
PERFORMANCE OF
THE COMMISSION
IN DELIVERING
THE HELPLINE
AND THE
GRANTS PROGRAMME,
WHICH INDICATE
THAT THE
GOVERNMENT IS
RIGHT TO
ADDRESS THIS
ISSUE. WE
BELIEVE THAT
SUCH A
HELPLINE CAN
PROVIDE AN
IMPORTANT SOURCE
OF SUPPORT
TO SOME
OF THE
MOST VULNERABLE
PEOPLE IN
SOCIETY AND
THEREFORE DUE
CONSIDERATION MUST
BE GIVEN
TO USER
REQUIREMENTS, AS
WELL AS
DELIVERY COSTS,
IN COMMISSIONING
AN ALTERNATIVE.
YOU PROPOSE
THAT THE
COMMISSION CARRY
OUT ITSELF
A NUMBER
OF TASKS
IT CURRENTLY
FUNDS OTHER
ORGANISATIONS TO
UNDERTAKE. WE
HAVE SOME
CONCERNS THAT
REQUIRING A
STREAMLINED COMMISSION
TO CARRY
OUT CAPACITY-BUILDING
MAY LEAD
TO UNDERPERFORMANCE
IN THIS
AREA, PARTICULAR
WHEN DELIVERED
IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH CITIZEN'S
ADVICE BUREAUX
AND LAW
CENTRES, WHICH
ARE THEMSELVES
FACING SIGNIFICANT
FUNDING CUTS.
CLARIFYING THE
COMMISSION'S
RELATIONSHIP TO
GOVERNMENT AND
STRENGTHENING FURTHER
ITS GOVERNANCE
AND SYSTEMS
TO PROVIDE
GREATER TRANSPARENCY,
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
VALUE FOR
MONEY
You propose a number of measures to make the Commission
more accountable to Ministers and to Parliament. We heard evidence
from the Commission Chair and Chief Executive about measures the
organisation has put in place to rectify previous mistakes in
governance. Mr Phillips also suggested to us that the organisation's
board "should not have been a stakeholder board"; it
should be "smaller" and "more plural."
WE SUPPORT
PROPOSALS FOR
BETTER OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMISSION'S
BUDGET AND
ACCOUNTS, PROVIDED
THESE DO
NOT COMPROMISE
THE ORGANISATION'S
INDEPENDENCE. WE
HOPE THAT
THE REFORM
PROCESS CAN
BE USED
TO ENSURE
THAT FUTURE
COMMISSION BOARDS
INCLUDE MEMBERS
FROM A
WIDER RANGE
OF BACKGROUNDS.
PROCESS FOR
REFORM
Your proposals will require a mixture of legislative
and non-legislative reform. You state that "because we consider
legislative change is desirable, we have included powers to make
the relevant regulations in the Public Bodies Bill currently before
Parliament." Mr Phillips expressed concern about the potential
for the Public Bodies Bill to compromise the Commission's independence
as it gives Ministers the power to make changes to its structure,
functions and funding. Independence from Government is essential
for the Commission as an equality regulator and "A"
status national Human Rights Institution.
WE ARE
PLEASED THAT
THE CONSULTATION
ON THE
FUTURE OF
THE EQUALITY
AND HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION
WILL RUN
FOR 12 WEEKS,
CONSISTENT WITH
BEST PRACTICE.
WE ARE,
HOWEVER, CONCERNED
BY YOUR
PROPOSAL FOR
ANY LEGISLATIVE
CHANGES TO
THE COMMISSION
TO BE
CARRIED OUT
BY REGULATIONS
MADE UNDER
THE PUBLIC
BODIES BILL
CURRENTLY GOING
THROUGH PARLIAMENT.
WE CONSIDER
THAT THESE
MEASURES MERIT
PROPER PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATE, NOT
LEAST BECAUSE
OF THE
PARTICULAR NEED
TO SAFEGUARD
THE COMMISSION'S
INDEPENDENCE AS
AN EQUALITY
REGULATOR AND
"A" STATUS NATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS
INSTITUTION.
April 2011
| 
