Living in a fair society, where everyone is treated with respect and protected from discrimination, should be at the forefront of any country’s agenda. But in recent years, there have been growing populist calls for the removal of institutions and laws that provide vital protection to those at risk of discrimination, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
This has created a challenging political environment for the UK’s independent equality and human rights regulator to operate within. Accusations of political bias and identity-based conflict have tarnished the reputation of the EHRC in recent years, chipping away at its public credibility. On top of this, austerity-driven cuts have stripped away funding, staff and resources from the regulator, providing a further set of operational challenges.
Concerns have also been raised about the EHRC’s credibility as a defender of trans rights after its policy positions were cited in the Supreme Court case on trans people’s access to single-sex services. And with some perceiving the EHRC to be ‘institutionally silent’ on other key issues, the human rights regulator has struggled to build a trusted public image.
But if populist calls for the extirpation of the EHRC are successful, these basic protections that give people rights at work and in their communities will be in peril.
There is a progressive alternative, however. A new pathway that reforms and strengthens the EHRC, acknowledging its vital role in making the UK a fairer country for every citizen. That progressive alternative is set out in detail today in our ‘Vital institutions 01, Reform and renewal of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’ report.
There are three really important reforms that we think the EHRC should make.
Firstly, the Commission must always remain politically neutral, but must never be passive in its work as an equality and human rights regulator. Too often in recent years, the Commission has been accused of being overly timid around sensitive public issues. While political neutrality is key – it must never become a justification for institutional silence. The Commission must be confident leading public debates in the many sensitive areas within its remit.
Secondly, the Commission must return to its more outward facing role and make much greater use of its powers to collaborate with regulators in the housing, welfare and health sectors, where too often human rights concerns often go unaddressed.
Thirdly, the Commission must shift its focus, away from reactive enforcement and towards proactive norm-setting, with improved use of evidence and enhanced strategic litigation. All of these recommendations can be delivered within the existing legal framework for the EHRC.
Of course, implementing these changes will not be straightforward within the EHRC’s current budgetary envelope. That’s why we’re recommending the government also makes changes. This should start by giving the Commission multi-year budgets rather than annual budgets, and giving parliamentary committees a bigger role in the appointment of future Commission chairs. This would provide greater long-term financial stability, allowing the regulator to strengthen and better enforce rights across the UK.
The EHRC’s future is at serious risk unless major changes are made to strengthen it and the appointment of a new Commission chair, Mary-Ann Stephenson, provides an important opportunity for those reforms to be made. The changes we have set out for the EHRC offer the chance to reform a vital part of the state and renew the nation. We urge the Commission and government to make our recommendations a reality.
