Government U-turn on EHRC’s General Duty – Neil Crowther

29 April 2013 by

EHRC-logoThe Government abandoned its plans to repeal the ‘general duty’ of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) under the Equality Act 2006 (the Act) last week, but insisted upon amendments to the EHRC’s duty to monitor progress on equality and human rights.

The general duty in section 3 of the Act sets out why the EHRC exists and the aims towards which it should be working, namely that it:

shall 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,

(d) each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and

(e) there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights.

As a purposive statement, the general duty was seen to complement wider developments in equality and human rights law, such as the positive obligations of the race and disability equality duties and the desire that the Human Rights Act 1998 would bring about cultural change. It helps clarify that the role of the Commission is not only to enforce existing law, but to pursue wider social change.

The general duty also provided the focus for EHRC’s separate duty to monitor progress in society on equality and human rights.  Section 12 of the Equality Act 2006 presently requires that: (1)The Commission shall from time to time identify (a) changes in society that have occurred or are expected to occur and are relevant to the aim specified in section 3, (b) results at which to aim for the purpose of encouraging and supporting the development of the society described in section 3 (“outcomes”), and (c) factors by reference to which progress towards those results may be measured (“indicators”).  The Commission’s reports ‘How Fair is Britain?’ (2010) and ‘Human Rights Review’ (2012) are the product of this duty.

In 2011 the Government announced its plans to bring forward a series of legislative and non-legislative reforms of the EHRC, some of which were dropped following interventions from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and others, who raised concerns that they were incompatible with the EHRC’s status as Britain’s national human rights institution.  However, the Government proceeded to include clauses in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill to repeal the general duty and reform EHRC’s duty to monitor progress (in addition to removing its duty to promote good relations and its powers to provide conciliation).  It argued that the general duty served no legal purpose and did not help clarify the precise functions that the EHRC is required to carry out.

As the government was proposing to repeal the general duty, it had to table a consequential amendment to the monitoring duty in section 12 as follows:

‘(1) The Commission shall from time to time identify (a) changes in society that have occurred or are expected to occur and are relevant to the duties specified in sections 8 [] and 9], (b) results at which to aim for the purpose of encouraging and supporting changes in society that are consistent with those duties (“outcomes”), and (c) factors by reference to which progress towards those results may be measured (“indicators”).’

Section 8 and section 9 of the Act set out the Commission’s specific functions with respect to equality and human rights rather than overall aims.

According to the Government’s report on the consultation on EHRC reform, over 80% of respondents opposed repeal of the general duty, expressing concern about ‘losing the guiding principles and values set out in the general duty, which had been debated in Parliament during the passage of the Equality Act 2006.’

The cross-bench Peer Baroness Campbell of Surbiton  successfully tabled amendments at Report stage in the House of Lords but the Government ignored these, reinstating the two clauses when the Bill returned to the Commons.   On Monday, by chance the 20th anniversary of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, Baroness Campbell re-tabled her amendments, which again secured wholesale support from members on all sides of the House of Lords, winning by 210 votes to 180.

The following morning the government announced its intention to back down on the repeal of the general duty. However, it decided to press ahead with its amendment to section 12 on grounds that ‘we do not consider it realistic to expect the EHRC to report in a meaningful or effective way against a duty which, by general agreement, is essentially symbolic’.[1]

Baroness Campbell had highlighted the risk of this amendment in her speech on Monday evening, pointing out that whereas the EHRC’s existing monitoring duty requires it to ‘hold up a mirror to society’, in future it would be limited to ‘holding up a mirror to itself and asking only “how effective is the Commission?”

However, the risk identified by Baroness Campbell stemmed from the possibility of the Commission losing its general duty as well. As the Commission will now be required to continue to discharge its functions with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of the society envisaged at section 3, any consideration of changes in society that are consistent with the duties at sections 8 and 9 will, despite the amendment, have to continue to take account of the aims in the general duty.  Further, the amendment will now mean that the Commission will need to monitor additional issues such as public attitudes towards, and understanding of, equality and human rights, and the compliance of public authorities with section 6 of the Human Rights Act.

Neil Crowther is an independent consultant and previously held the posts of Director of the Human Rights Programme and Director of Disability Rights at the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

3 comments


  1. Tim says:

    This unelected government barks like a rabid dog about people “doing the right thing” yet when it’s their turn to promote fairness and equality, this is what they slop out.

    Society still has a long, long way to go on equality and fairness for disabled people. Here, for example, is the legal profession’s attitude to Deaf people:

    http://www.robwilks.com/2012/09/30/the-law-is-an-ass/

    It’s bad enough that disabled people are treated like dirt, including by employers, but then some will add insult to injury by blaming disabled people for their own unemployment.

  2. John D says:

    Seemingly, state funding of religious schooling contravenes the general duty.

  3. Jon Holbrook says:

    I have reviewed an excellent book “Rights Gone Wrong: how law corrupts the struggle for equality” on Spiked. I conclude that: “Rights go wrong when there are no wrongs that rights can right.”

    http://www.spiked-online.com/site/reviewofbooks_article/13570/

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: