5. Memorandum from the British Humanist
Association
The British Humanist Association, which is represented
on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) Task Force
by its Executive Director, will make a detailed submission on
the 'Fairness for All' White Paper in due course. In this brief
memorandum, we only comment on certain issues raised in the Eleventh
Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) of Session
2003-04, and specifically those where there are significant differences
between the JCHR Report and the White Paper.
1. The duty to promote understanding and awareness
and help secure the protection of human rights in Great Britain
(JCHR, para 14).
We agree that the CEHR should have a clear duty to
help secure the protection of human rights as well as to promote
human rights.
2. A mandate which allows the CEHR to promote
respect for human rights "in a broad inclusive sense"
(JCHR, para 18)
The White Paper focuses on the ECHR and HRA. While
it seems reasonable that some priority be given to rights covered
by the ECHR, we agree with the JCHR that the CEHR should also
have regard to international treaties, and should participate
in the preparation of reports on the UK's compliance with international
human rights instruments.
3. Positive duty on public authorities to promote
human rights (JCHR paras 28-32)
There is considerable evidence of the impact of the
positive duty in relation to race equality, and of similar positive
duties in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London.
The positive duty will be extended to disability, and the Government
has recently announced its intention to create a similar positive
duty in relation to gender. In these circumstances, and in the
light of the Audit Commission's findings on the lack of progress
made by public authorities on human rights, we consider it essential
to impose a positive duty on public authorities to promote human
rights. We do not believe that the legal framework set out in
Chapter 4 of the White Paper is sufficient to address the poor
performance of public authorities in relation to human rights.
We would also like to take the positive duty further,
and recommend a positive duty on public authorities to promote
equality across all six strands of equality legislation and human
rights. With the new Employment Equality Regulations covering
employment and vocational training, but not education, goods and
services, such a positive duty will be particularly important.
4. Supporting the voluntary sector (JCHR paras
34-35)
While the JCHR Eleventh Report recommends that the
CEHR work in partnership with the voluntary sector to enable voluntary
groups to use human rights principles in negotiations with public
authorities and in policy and campaigning work, the White Paper
only considers work with the voluntary sector in relation to the
promotion of good relations. While this is important, we believe
that the voluntary sector could contribute a great deal to the
development of a human rights culture through its interactions
with public authorities, but would need the support of the CEHR
to achieve this. The British Humanist Association's own experience
of using human rights arguments in submissions to public authorities,
at both local and national level, often with little success, would
seem to bear this out.
5. A single equality act (JCHR para 46)
The British Humanist Association agrees that a single
equality act that rationalises the existing equality legislation,
including the 'levelling up' of the law relating to discrimination
on all the grounds now identified, should be introduced and enacted
with all speed. If, as seems likely, the CEHR is established before
the enactment of a single equality act, we would suggest that
the CEHR be given a specific remit to assist the Government in
drawing up the legislation.
6. Supporting individual cases (JCHR para 70)
While accepting that the CEHR should not support
individual free-standing cases under the HRA, we support the JCHR
recommendation that a memorandum of understanding between the
CEHR and Legal Services Commission be developed to cover the criteria
for strategic funding of human rights cases and their application.
7. Mixed equality and human rights cases (JCHR
paras 72-76)
We consider it essential that combined cases continue
to be supported if the discrimination element has fallen away:
abandoning such a case would be unacceptable, not least because
it would send out the message that human rights are unimportant.
8. Judicial review (JCHR paras 81-93)
We believe that the CEHR should have the power to
seek judicial review where it has reason to believe that policies,
actions or omissions have resulted or are likely to result in
violations of Convention rights. A Commission with the express
purpose of promoting and protecting human rights must be able
to act to prevent abuses of human rights.
9. Independence and accountability, and the relationship
with parliament (JCHR paras 108-143)
The BHA believes that a Human Rights Commission must
be, and be seen to be, independent of government. We do not believe
that the traditional non-departmental public body model would
provide sufficient guarantees of independence for a Commission
that covers human rights as well as equality. We therefore support
a model similar to that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for
Administration, the National Audit Office and the Electoral Commission.
The CEHR should be directly accountable to Parliament. Parliament,
rather than a ministerial department, should set the CEHR's budget,
and the Chair should be appointed as an 'Officer of Parliament'.
There should be a statutory committee to approve and oversee the
CEHR's budget and strategic plan, and the CEHR should make an
annual report to both houses, with a committee of both houses
established to scrutinise these reports.
June 2004
| 
