Joint Committee On Human Rights

Joint Committee On Human Rights Sixteenth Report

1 Introduction

The case for a human rights commission

1. We reported in March 2003 on The Case for a Human Rights Commission.[1]We found the case for the establishment of a human rights commission in Great Britain compelling, and concluded that—

… an independent commission would be the most effective way of achieving the shared aim of bringing about a culture of respect for human rights.

2. On 30 October 2003, the Government announced its intention of proceeding with the establishment of a new body, which would take over the responsibilities of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission; which would take on enforcement and promotion responsibilities in relation to the legislation making unlawful unfair discriminatory treatment of people with regard to age, religion or belief and sexual orientation; and which would have responsibilities for the promotion of human rights. This is the model we had favoured in our own report.

Our previous report on the proposed Commission

3. We reported again in May 2004 on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights: Structure, Functions and Powers.[2] In relation to the functions of the new body, our report recommended that the Commission:

a) should have a widely drawn remit in respect of the promotion of a culture of respect for human rights, going beyond the Convention rights incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act;

b) should have a role in reporting on the UK's discharge of its international human rights obligations;

c) should be focused on achieving strategic change through promotion, advice, the spreading of best practice and the raising of public awareness;

d) should not, for the most part, be directly involved in the resolution of individual cases;

e) should have as its key role working with the public sector to give practical effect to a culture of respect for human rights in the policy and practice of providers of public services, and that this should be achieved through close co-operation with the bodies charged with regulating, auditing and inspecting the quality of public services;

f) should also be able to guide and advise the private sector on the development of a culture of respect for human rights;

g) should have a duty to build the capacity of the private and voluntary sectors to advise and assist individuals in understanding and asserting their rights;

h) should promote alternative dispute resolution as a way of avoiding litigation and pre-empting violations of rights;

i) should have a general duty to promote good relations between communities and groups within Great Britain based on respect for the values of human rights so as to encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes;

We also recommended that these functions should be underpinned by a general statutory duty on public authorities to promote human rights.

4. In relation to powers, we recommended in particular that the Commission:

a) should be able to conduct public inquiries into matters of public policy relating to human rights, and should have the ancillary powers needed to make these inquiries effective;

b) should have the power to assist as a friend of the court or to intervene as a third party in significant cases raising questions of public interest relating to human rights;

c) should have an exceptional power to seek judicial review on compliance by public authorities with their duties under the Human Rights Act.

5. In relation to the new body's structure, we recommended that the commissioners should be appointed with the involvement of Parliament, and should not be chosen as "champions" of particular strands of the commission's responsibilities. We also recommended special arrangements to guarantee the independence of the commission as a constitutional watchdog, while also securing its democratic accountability. These included proposals for a special relationship between the commission and Parliament.

6. Finally, we concluded that the arrangements which were to be put in place should be regarded as transitional, until Parliament enacts a single, comprehensive Equality Act.[3]

The White Paper

7. A week after our report was published the Government's White Paper Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights[4] was published. In it, the Government set out its proposals for the role, duties and powers of the proposed Commission, based on the work of the Taskforce which was established in December 2003 to advise it.

8. We are pleased to note that there is a great deal of agreement between our report and the White Paper. We consider that the Government's proposals represent a reasonable scheme on which to base the detailed design of the new body. However, there are some areas of disagreement between our proposals and those of the Government, and the purpose of this short report is to highlight these.

9. We invited comment on the areas of difference between our proposals and those of the Government. We received a number of submissions, which are printed as Appendices to this report. We are grateful to those organisations and individuals who took the time to write to us.[5]

Areas of difference

10. In this report we consider the areas of divergence between the White Paper and our own report. These appear to be principally:

a) the precise nature of the general duty placed upon the CEHR in relation to the promotion and protection of human rights;

b) the details of the power of the Commission to conduct "general inquiries" into matters connected with human rights;

c) the case for a "positive" or "public sector" duty in relation to human rights;

d) the scope of the right of the Commission to support individual cases, in particular "mixed cases" in which both discrimination and human rights issues arise;

e) the power of the Commission to seek judicial review of the policies, actions and omissions of public authorities under the Human Rights Act;

f) facilitation by the Commission of alternative dispute resolution in human rights cases;

g) the institutional and funding arrangements to secure the independence and accountability of the new body.

We now examine these in turn.

1 Sixth Report, Session 2002-03, The Case for a Human Rights Commission, HL Paper 67-I and II, HC 489-I and II; see also Twenty-second Report, Session 2001-02, The Case for a Human Rights Commission: Interim Report, HL Paper 160/HC 1142. Back

2 Eleventh Report, Session 2003-04, Commission for Equality and Human Rights: Structure, Functions and Powers, HL paper 78/HC 536. Back