12. Memorandum from the Equal Opportunities
Commission
In response to your consultation of 19 March
2003 on the case for a human rights commission, the EOC would
like to respond to your two main questions, as set out below.
Our thinking on some of your other questions is still fluid, and
we will keep you informed as our policy develops. We will shortly
be sending you our response to the current consultation on the
proposed Scottish Human Rights Commission, which we are finalising
this week.
Q1. The JCHR's preferred option is for an
Integrated Human Rights and Equality Commission. How would this
function best fit with the three options for a Single Equality
Body?
The EOC's position on the single equality body
is set out in our response to the government consultation paper
"Equality and Diversity: Making It Happen", a copy of
which I enclose with this letter. We believe that, provided a
number of other factors are in place, including sufficient resources,
a compelling and substantial vision of equality and further reform
of equality legislation, a single body would have the best chance
of delivering across all areas of equality. The gateway and umbrella
models would be less likely to deliver benefits for the complexity
of equality issues, and in particular would not support the three
new strands of age, sexual orientation and religion or belief.
We also think it unlikely that the government will adopt either
of these models.
Our current policy position with regard to equality
and human rights is that there are strong potential links between
the agendas, and that any future equality body should, as a minimum,
be able to use human rights arguments and legislation to promote
and enforce equality. We have asked for future stages of the government
consultation on the equality body to include questions on the
extent to which the new institution should have a human rights
remit and powers, and in particular how far that remit might run.
Whatever the final decision on a body for England and Wales, we
are concerned that there should be clarity about its remit, and
in particular that it should take into account the proposed creation
of a Scottish Human Rights Commission, so that functions in Scotland
are not duplicated.
Because we have not finalised our policy on
these questions, we have not developed any policy on the potential
structure of any integrated human rights and equality commission.
There is an ongoing debate as to whether an equality body should
be structured around the equality strands or around its functions.
The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is structured around
its functions. The Disability Rights Commission is arguing that
any GB body should be structured around its equality strands,
while the Commission for Racial Equality is advocating a compromise
between the two, which might evolve over time.
If the body were to be an integrated Human Rights
and Equality Commission, this structural debate would have to
be extended to consider which structure might achieve the most
effective outcome for equality and for human rights objectives.
The equivalent question would then be: should there be a human
rights "department" or should human rights be mainstreamed
across the operations of the other strands and functions? While
we do not yet have any answers to that question, it may be that
the answer depends to a large extent on how the merged body defines
its vision of the inter-relationship of human rights and equality,
and how it hopes to achieve its aims. To have a separate department
would risk perpetuating the divide between equality and human
rights, whereas to mainstream entirely might be to subsume all
human rights issues within equality.
Q2. If two separate bodies were preferred, what
functions and powers related to human rights should an SEB have?
We appreciate the potential difficulties in
having two separate bodies with related but separate remits, powers
and functions. The experience in Northern Ireland suggests, however,
that the distinction is manageable, given adequate protocols and
a good working relationship.
We would like to see any future equality body
having an extended remit to deal with freestanding human rights
issues where they relate to equality. It is our general position
that an equality commission should have as broad and flexible
a range of powers as possible, from promotional and awareness
raising, to enforcement through investigations and support for
individual cases.
We would also therefore want the body to have
the explicit power to use human rights concepts and legislation
in its conduct of equality investigations. This might allow the
body to comment on those institutions where, for example, sexual
harassment is closely related to an overall culture of non-sex-specific
bullying and harassment. We would also like the body to have the
powers to support free-standing human rights cases where they
relate to equality, and to take such cases in its own name. This
might include cases which raise issues of domestic violence, the
treatment of female rape victims, and immigration and nationality
questions. (There is some debate as to whether the EOC can in
fact take such cases under our current powers. It would be to
everyone's benefit for this position to be clarified for any new
body.)
We would also like any debate on the powers
and functions of a new equality body to take into account the
question of creating a broad statutory duty on public bodies to
promote equality. We believe that such a positive duty would form
a strong basis for institutional change, and potentially for the
kind of culture change which has been called for, by the Minister
for Equalities in relation to equality, and by the former Home
Secretary in relation to human rights. Whether the new body is
an equality body or a merged human rights and equality body, promotion
should be central to its approach, backed up by flexible forms
of enforcement.
Our views on some, although not all, of your
other consultation questions are contained in our written evidence
to your previous enquiry on this subject.
I hope that you find the above helpful. We would
be pleased to clarify any details and welcome your consultation
and the convergence of the two debates.
5 June 2003
| 
