• Burnip v Birmingham City Council (respondent) and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (second respondent)
• Trengrove v Walsall Metropolitan Council (respondent) and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (second respondent)
• Gorry v Wiltshire Council (respondent) and Secretary of State for work and Pensions (second respondent)

A human rights case, in which the Commission intervened, has established that housing benefit must take into account the extra needs of disabled children and adults.

The Commission agrees with the common sense ruling on all three cases heard by the Court of Appeal. It says the decision will help stop disabled people from being evicted if the housing benefit cap means they or their parents do not get enough money to pay all the rent for a suitable home.

Mr Burnip has carers 24 hours a day to help him as he is severely disabled. He only got housing benefit for a one bedroom flat, as that was all he was entitled to at the time, but needed a second bedroom for his carers to sleep in overnight. Ms Trengrove, who has died, was in a similar situation.

Two of the three siblings in the Gorry family are disabled - one has Down's Syndrome, another has Spina Bifida. The family could only claim for a three bedroom home, so the two disabled children would have to share a bedroom. Their disabilities made this impossible.

The government has already changed the regulations for calculating housing benefits for disabled adults, but will now have to change it for families with disabled children.

John Wadham, General Counsel, Equality and |Human Rights Commission said:

"Our intervention in the Burnip case has helped to ensure that all disabled people claiming housing benefit do not face indirect discrimination. If it was not for the Human Rights Act, disabled people may be more likely fall into rent arrears because they cannot afford the home that meets their needs and then face eviction."

 

"The rulings underline our analysis of the government's 2010 spending review, published yesterday, which looked at potential effects of those decisions on women, ethnic minorities and disabled people. It calls for the development of a common model of analysis to predict the likely equality effects of policy and earlier use of the equality duties to ensure better targeting of funds and greater value for money.

Ends

For more press information contact the Commission's media office on 020 3117 0255, out of hours 07767 272 818.

For general enquiries please contact the Commission’s national helpline: England 0845 604 6610, Scotland 0845 604 5510 or Wales 0845 604 8810.

Notes to Editors

Article 14 of the Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination. It says:

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006, which took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It is the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, and encourages compliance with the Human Rights Act. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.

The Commission today publishes its equality assessment of the government’s 2010 Spending Review.

The Commission's report considers the extent to which the decision-making by ministers and Treasury officials met legal obligations to consider the impact on equality when completing the Review. It is the first time an assessment of this kind and scale has been undertaken.

The Commission’s analysis covers the detailed decision making process from start to finish in the Spending Review. It has been informed by unprecedented access to confidential documents from HM Treasury and other government departments and oral evidence sessions with ministers, including the chief secretary to the Treasury, and senior civil servants from the Treasury, Department of Work and Pensions, and Ministry of Justice.

Public bodies, such as HM Treasury, were legally obliged at the time of the Spending Review to demonstrate that they had fully considered the potential effects of their decisions on women, ethnic minorities and disabled people, and that any decisions with an effect on these groups could be justified.

Findings

The report commends Ministers and officials for "serious" efforts to meet the requirements of their obligations. It finds that in six cases the Treasury acted in accordance with the requirements under the equality duties:

• Removing Child Benefit from households with a higher rate taxpayer
• Reform of Legal Aid
• A £2.5 billion pupil premium for disadvantaged children
• Removal of mobility component of Disability Living Allowance from claimants in residential care homes
• 10 per cent reduction in Council Tax Benefit expenditure, and localisation
• Time-limiting the contributory Employment and Support Allowance to one year for those in the Work Related Activity Group

However, in three cases, the Commission says that it was unable to establish whether or not the decisions were in full accord with the requirements of the duty because of a lack of clarity as to a) where the true site of the decisions lay and b) whether or not some decisions were the responsibility of other government departments or the government as a whole.

These cases are:

• Introduction of a household benefits cap. There was no evidence of any gender analysis or equality screening of the measure provided to HM Treasury ministers prior to the announcement of the measure.
• Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG). The potential impact on people with disabilities was not included in the advice provided to HM Treasury ministers.
• Replacing Education Maintenance Allowance with local discretionary funds. There was no reference to ethnicity, disability or gender in information provided to HM Treasury ministers.

The Commission believes that it would be disproportionate to take further formal action in these three specific decisions. The government has, however undertaken to work with the Commission and its officials to address the issues raised by the report.

The Commission's report calls for:

• Greater transparency in future reviews
• The development of a common model of analysis to predict the likely equality effects of policy
• Earlier use of the equality duties to ensure better targeting of funds and greater value for money

Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

"This has been an unprecedented exercise by the Commission. We were helped immensely by the openness of Ministers in particular the Chief Secretary, who gave evidence, and the Chancellor. We believe that our recommendations will go a long way to making sure that all parts of government are better able to meet their legal obligations, and more importantly to make decisions which are fairer, and seen to be fairer.

The key point for the Commission's work is not to judge the past, but to transform the future. I am particularly pleased that the government has indicated that it will work with us over the next few years to make sure that the equality impact of policy is fully understood and taken into account before decisions are made. That we think will lead to more targeted spending, more effective use of public money, and above all greater fairness all round."

Download the report

Making fair financial decisions - Full report PDF

Making fair financial decisions - Executive summary PDF

Ends

For more press information, contact the Commission’s media office on 020 3117 0255, out of hours 07767 272 818. For general enquiries please contact the Commission’s national helpline: England 0845 604 6610, Scotland 0845 604 5510 or Wales 0845 604 8810.

Notes to editors

The Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006. It took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, and encourages compliance with the Human Rights Act. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.
 

• Homer v West Yorkshire Police
• Seldon v Clarkson, Wright and Jakes

The Commission believes the first judgements handed down by the Supreme Court on age discrimination will remind all employers of their responsibilities and help make the law clearer.

Age discrimination is unlawful in the workplace, but the law allows exceptions to that general rule only if it can be justified. The justification is if it is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. This test can be confusing for employers and employees.

The Supreme Court judgments say it is much harder to justify direct age discrimination such as mandatory retirement age (Seldon) than indirect age discrimination (Homer). The test for justifying age-based treatment is different for direct and indirect discrimination.

In Mr Homer's case the Supreme Court has asked the tribunal to re-consider the justifications given by West Yorkshire Police for introducing a requirement to have a law degree for senior posts. The judges indicated that the tribunal might have upheld his claim of indirect age discrimination had it asked the right questions about whether that policy was justifiable.

The Supreme Court decided that Mr Seldon's firm did have some valid reasons for having a mandatory retirement age for partners. However, it has asked the tribunal to consider if forcing partners to leave after their 65th birthday (rather than at a different age) was appropriate and necessary. The judgment raises questions that any business will find helpful in considering mandatory retirement age.

In making the ruling on Seldon, the Supreme Court gave some helpful guidelines on when direct age discrimination may be justified. These are:

• Two types of aims had succeeded in the courts, those based on intergenerational fairness or dignity. Examples include:
  • Promoting access to employment for younger people
  • Facilitating the participation of older workers in the workforce
  • The efficient planning for the departure and recruitment of staff
  • Avoiding disputes about the employee's fitness for work over a certain age
• Once an aim has been identified, it has still to be asked whether it is legitimate in the particular circumstances of the employment concerned.
• The means used to achieve an aim must be proportionate to the aim and (reasonably) necessary to achieve it.

John Wadham, General Counsel, Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

'The judgments remind employers that a worker's age is not shorthand for their competence and should never be used in that way. An employee's ability to do a job should not be based on out of date assumptions about what people can do as they get older.'

'Every employer must think carefully about whether it really needs to have a policy that directly or indirectly discriminates against people based on their age. The court has made it clear that such policies must be justified on a case by case basis. An employer or partnership must be sure that the same aim couldn't be achieved using a less discriminatory approach.'

Ends

For more press information contact the Commission's media office on 020 3117 0255, out of hours 07767 272 818.

For general enquiries please contact the Commission's national helpline: England 0845 604 6610, Scotland 0845 604 5510 or Wales 0845 604 8810.

Notes to editors

The Commission is funding and running the direct discrimination case of Mr Seldon against Clarkson, Wright and Jakes where he was a senior partner. The law firm forced him to retire in 2006 because he turned 65. He is still practicing law at the age of 71, working as a notary.

The Commission intervened in the indirect discrimination case of Mr Homer against Yorkshire Police Constabulary where he was a senior legal advisor. He could not get the highest pay grade, after his employer's rules changed, because he did not have a law degree nor could he complete one before his retirement.

The Employment Equality (Repeal of Retirement Age Provisions) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1069) overturned the retirement age provisions. From October 2012 employers will not be able to use a blanket retirement age. However, an employer can still force an employee to retire if it can show that the policy is justifiable as a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. For this reason, the Supreme Court's clarification of this test has wide implications for all.

The Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006, which took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It is the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, and encourages compliance with the Human Rights Act. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.

Research released by the Commission at this week’s Brighton conference on the European Court of Human Rights, shows that just a tiny minority of rulings by the Strasbourg Court are against the UK government.

The research shows that of the nearly 12,000 applications brought against the UK between 1999 and 2010, the vast majority fell at the first hurdle. Only three per cent (390 applications) were declared admissible. An even smaller proportion of applications - 1.8 per cent (215) - eventually resulted in a judgment finding a violation. The latest figures for 2011 show a rate of defeat of just 0.5 per cent, or one in 200.

The research also shows that, in a similar situation to the Human Rights Act, where the UK parliament has sovereignty over its implementation, UK courts have the flexibility to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights in a manner different to that of the Strasbourg court. A ‘margin of appreciation’ recognises that national authorities are in the main best placed to decide how human rights should be applied.

While judgments against the UK have been relatively few in number, a significant proportion involved basic civil liberties such as the right to a fair trial; around eight per cent of judgments related to the right to life and the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

Other important rulings have led to better protection against unnecessary intrusion into privacy through the use of secret surveillance; legislation outlawing forced labour and servitude; equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people and protecting the freedom of the UK media, including the protection of journalists' sources and the importance of investigative journalism, as in the exposure by the Sunday Times of the thalidomide case.

The Commission, which is Britain’s National Human Rights Institution (NHRI), welcomed the Declaration issued by government representatives gathered in Brighton. In particular, the Commission welcomed their acknowledgement of the Court’s extraordinary contribution to the protection of human rights in Europe; the right of individuals to take their cases to the Court as the cornerstone of the system; the UK government’s acknowledgement that it can prevent breaches of the Convention and reduce the workload of the Court by ensuring respect for human rights at home; and the reaffirmation of the important role of NHRI’s like the Equality and Human Rights Commission in protecting human rights.

The Commission also welcomed the news that the backlog of cases which has built up will be dealt with over the next few years and moves to improve selection processes so that only the best individuals become judges.

John Wadham, General Counsel, Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

'This month’s judgment on the Abu Hamza case highlights that, contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of rulings by European Court of Human Rights are in Britain’s favour, rather than against it.'

'Research prepared for the Commission ahead of this week’s Brighton conference on the European Court, shows that 98 per cent of rulings are in Britain’s favour rather than against. And even then, our governments and courts have the flexibility to interpret rulings rather than automatically be bound by them.'

'Britain has a strong record in supporting and upholding the rights contained in the European Convention and we can be proud of our leadership in this area. As the UK’s National Human Rights Institution, the Commission supports the recommendations made by our fellow European National Human Rights Institutions to increase the effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights and for the UK government to affirm its commitment to protecting the rights in the European Convention.'

-Ends-

For more press information, contact the Commission’s media office on 020 3117 0255, out of hours 07767 272 818. For general enquiries please contact the Commission’s national helpline: England 0845 604 6610, Scotland 0845 604 5510 or Wales 0845 604 8810.

Notes to editors

The Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006. It took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, and encourages compliance with the Human Rights Act. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.
 

A Commission spokesperson said:

'The Government’s email and web monitoring plans would potentially be incompatible with the right to privacy of many ordinary people in the UK.'

'The Commission's own research last year into information privacy concluded that there was a lack of proper regulatory oversight and too much conflicting legislation, all of which fails to provide adequate protection for citizens and their private information.'

'We found that the way the government and its agencies collect, use and store personal data is not respecting people s right to privacy. However, because of the complexity of the current laws,  obligations are unclear and authorities may be unaware they are breaking the law.'

'These issues need properly addressing rather than introducing new proposals which further reduce people's rights to privacy.'

Trevor Phillips, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

"We welcome the government's announcement of its strategy. The Commission's role is to support the creation of a fairer Britain, in which everybody has the ability to participate and realise their full potential and we look forward to working with the government to implement this important work.

"The Commission particularly welcomes the government's commitment to tackling intolerance and extremism of all kinds. At a time of increased economic pressures on society the government is right to work towards ensuring that hardship does not lead to increased tension and discrimination.

"Britain has enjoyed huge advances in tolerance and fairness over the last 30 years. However, the Commission's research has identified particular groups which still suffer barriers to economic and social mobility. We therefore support a strategy which ensures that public resources are targeted as efficiently as possible on these groups who would really benefit from assistance, rather than blanket, unfocussed spending based on assumptions rather than evidence of what will work best."

Ends

For more press information contact the Commission's media office on 020 3117 0255, out of hours 07767 272 818.

For general enquiries please contact the Commission's national helpline: England 0845 604 6610, Scotland 0845 604 5510 or Wales 0845 604 8810.

The Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006, which took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It is the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, and encourages compliance with the Human Rights Act. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.

Trevor Phillips, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

"We welcome the government's announcement of its strategy. The Commission's role is to support the creation of a fairer Britain, in which everybody has the ability to participate and realise their full potential and we look forward to working with the government to implement this important work.

"The Commission particularly welcomes the government's commitment to tackling intolerance and extremism of all kinds. At a time of increased economic pressures on society the government is right to work towards ensuring that hardship does not lead to increased tension and discrimination.

"Britain has enjoyed huge advances in tolerance and fairness over the last 30 years. However, the Commission's research has identified particular groups which still suffer barriers to economic and social mobility. We therefore support a strategy which ensures that public resources are targeted as efficiently as possible on these groups who would really benefit from assistance, rather than blanket, unfocussed spending based on assumptions rather than evidence of what will work best."

Ends

For more press information contact the Commission's media office on 020 3117 0255, out of hours 07767 272 818.

For general enquiries please contact the Commission's national helpline: England 0845 604 6610, Scotland 0845 604 5510 or Wales 0845 604 8810.

The Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006, which took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It is the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, and encourages compliance with the Human Rights Act. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.

In response to the ruling on prayers in Council meetings, a spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

"Many litigants attempt to use the important protections in the Human Rights Act inappropriately.  We note that the human rights arguments in this case have been rejected by the judge.  We think it unfortunate that a compromise couldn't be reached on this matter, without resorting to legal action."

Ends

In response to the ruling on prayers in Council meetings, a spokesperson for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

"Many litigants attempt to use the important protections in the Human Rights Act inappropriately.  We note that the human rights arguments in this case have been rejected by the judge.  We think it unfortunate that a compromise couldn't be reached on this matter, without resorting to legal action."

Ends

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has successfully defended an appeal in the Court of Appeal against a ruling in the County Court which found that hotel owners had directly discriminated against a gay couple.

Mr and Mrs Bull appealed against the County Court’s decision that they were wrong to refuse Mr Preddy and Mr Hall a double room for the night in their hotel. The owners said that their hotel rule, based on their Christian faith, was that no unmarried couples could share a double room.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the County Court that the hotel’s rule directly discriminated against civil partners Mr Preddy and Mr Hall. The couple were treated differently because of their sexual orientation as it is not possible for a gay couple to marry.

In the appeal ruling the judges noted that both sides recognised the strongly held views of the other, and the Commission went to great lengths to reassure Mr and Mrs Bull that their beliefs were not under question.

The judges took into consideration the fact that discrimination law had changed and that Mr and Mrs Bull had been running their hotel along Christian principles for decades. They noted the owners’ right to manifest their religion and protection from religious discrimination.

However, the judges ruled that religious belief does not offer an exemption from laws that everyone running a business has to follow. Equality law already has exemptions for religious organisations, which the judges noted the hotel was not.

The court dismissed the Bull’s claim that their right to a private life would be compromised by allowing gay couples to sleep in a double room. The Bulls could manifest their beliefs in many ways outside of their business interests, including in their home which is separate from the hotel.

John Wadham, Group Director Legal, Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:

“I have genuine sympathy for Mr and Mrs Bull, as their beliefs are clearly strongly held. We believe that this case will help people to better understand the law around freedom of religion. When offering a service, people cannot use their beliefs – religious or otherwise – to discriminate against others.

“As the discrimination ruling has been upheld, Mr Preddy and Mr Hall are entitled to the compensation ordered by the County Court. However the Commission has no intention of enforcing its entitlement to legal costs."

Ends

For interviews with Mr Preddy and Mr Hall or an EHRC spokesperson and for more press information contact the Commission’s press office on 020 3117 0255, out of hours 07767 272 818.

For general enquiries please contact the Commission’s national helpline: England 0845 604 6610, Scotland 0845 604 5510 or Wales 0845 604 8810.

Notes to editors

Mr Preddy and Mr Hall brought a claim for discrimination based on their sexual orientation under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations) 2007. This law is now part of the Equality Act 2010. They were successful in their County Court claim and the Court of Appeal has upheld that decision. They were awarded £1,800 each in compensation.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission funded both Mr Preddy and Mr Hall’s discrimination claim and their defence to Mr and Mrs Bull’s appeal. It supported thier case to establish an important principle of law and the litigation was taken purely in the public interest. As a publicly funded body the Equality and Human Rights Commission has a duty to protect public funds but given the circumstances it intends to seek the authority not to recover its costs in this case.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006, which took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It is the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, and encourages compliance with the Human Rights Act. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.