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

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.

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.

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

The Commission will use the first two age discrimination cases to be heard by the UK’s Supreme Court today (17 January 2012) to argue that an exception to the law banning age discrimination in employment is in urgent need of clarification.

Both cases seek clarity from the UK’s highest court on the interpretation of the rule that allows employers to justify age discrimination if they can prove it is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

Default retirement age was scrapped in April 2011, however, an employer can still force an employee to retire using 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 the test has wide implications for all retirement situations.

The Commission is funding and running the direct discrimination case of Mr Seldon against the law firm where he was a senior partner - Clarkson, Wright and Jakes. He was forced to retire in 2006 because he turned 65.

The regulator is also funding 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 degree nor could he complete one before his retirement.

John Wadham, Group Legal Director at the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s said:

'Forced retirement ages have been abolished, but now lawyers and employers need to understand when age discrimination is 'justifiable' in terms of the law.

'People should be measured on what they can contribute in the workplace: age-related stereotypes about what people can or cannot do should not be a factor. It would not be tolerated if it was applied to any other form of discrimination.'

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.

Direct age discrimination: treating someone less favourably because of their actual or perceived age, or because of the age of someone with whom they associate. The law permits justification of treatment only if it is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”.

Indirect age discrimination: putting in place a rule or policy or way of doing things that has a worse impact on because of someone’s age, when this cannot be objectively justified.

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, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation or transgender status, 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 a Met Police plan to reduce the number of random stop and searches it carries out under s60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, John Wadham, Group Legal Director, Equality and Human Rights Commission said:

"We welcome the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner's statement. We are pleased the force intends to change its practices, so that fewer people are stopped without good reason – breaching their human rights. We will continue to work with the Met Police to make sure it deals with all the issues we've raised about its use of stop and search, and will check that these changes lead to a reduction in the disproportionate stopping and searching of ethnic minorities."

Ends

• May 2010:EHRC warns Met Police over its disproportional use of Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) stop and search. It embarks on the National Police Improvement Agency’s ‘Next Steps’ programme, designed to help overcome any potential discriminatory stop and search actions.
• Nov 2010: EHRC says it still has concerns about the Met Police’s use of PACE stop and search and will monitor the situation.
• 25 Oct 2011 : EHRC wrote to the Met Police requesting data on their use of s.60 stop and search for the past four years.
• 13 Dec 2011: EHRC wrote to the Met Police threatening legal action if it did not discontinue the unlawful use of s.60.
• 23 Jan 2012: Deadline for the Met Police response to both the Freedom of Information request and its response to legal action.