Call to scrap 'useless' equalities watchdog which costs taxpayers millions







Britain’s embattled human rights quango should be scrapped, a report says today.

It claims that the Equality and Human Rights Commission contributes ‘very little to meaningful equality’ despite costing the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds a year.

The Civitas think-tank says that abolition would come at ‘no obvious cost to the public’.

Nice work if you can get it: Equalities and Human Rights Commission head Trevor Phillips earns £112,000 a year

The report is scathing of the pay and expenses of the Commission’s most senior staff, including chairman Trevor Phillips who receives £112,000 a year for working three and a half days a week.

It also criticises the quango’s ‘illogical’ use of statistics and ‘narrow approach’ to social policy.

The report is a fresh blow to the quango which has suffered a series of financial scandals and high-profile resignations, culminating in a scathing Government review which found it had failed to do its job and had cost too much money. It is now facing large-scale cuts in its Whitehall funding.

A SATELLITE DISH IS A HUMAN RIGHT

Putting up a satellite dish is a human right, according to European judges.

Lawmakers in Strasbourg have warned that banning dishes could breach the right to freedom of expression by preventing people from practising their religion.

The judgment under the Human Rights Act is a blow to campaigners who have fought to stop the large metal receivers from blighting historic buildings and rental properties.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has now warned that landlords could risk being sued if they stop their tenants putting up a satellite dish.

The European Commission’s Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said: ‘The right to use a satellite dish [is] one of the many concrete benefits for European consumers of the free movement of goods and services within the internal market.

‘Satellite dishes facilitate mutual exchanges between our various cultures by overcoming national borders. Their use must therefore be free from any unjustified obstacle.’

The report found ‘serious flaws’ in the way that the EHRC demonstrates inequality in Britain. It says the Commission is quick to blame unfairness in society while ignoring other important influences which could explain the differences between social groups.

It says that, for example, the EHRC points to differences in life expectancy between British-born women (80.5 years) and women of Pakistani origin (77.3) as a sign of unfairness.

However, it fails to draw attention to the much larger difference in life expectancy between Pakistani women living in Britain (77.3) and women living in Pakistan (67.5 years).

Jon Gower Davies, the report’s author, says the Commission’s goal of equality is unrealistic as it wishes that ‘life outcomes be entirely divorced from health limitations, cultural practices and lifestyles’.

A Civitas spokesman said: ‘Abolishing the EHRC would not just be a cost-saving exercise. It may well be an opportunity to channel resources into pertinent issues holding back equality and fairness.’ Mark Hammond, chief executive of the EHRC, said: ‘There are many reasons why people experience different levels of prosperity, health and happiness, but in some cases this can be because of discrimination and unfairness.

‘No one blames Britain for that, but it’s our job to start a debate on issues where we could see better outcomes for people suffering unfair disadvantages.’









