16. Memorandum from JUSTICE
INTRODUCTION
1. JUSTICE is an all-party, law reform and
human rights organisation, whose purpose is to advance justice,
human rights and the rule of law. It is the British section of
the International Commission of Jurists.
Q1: The Committee has concluded that there
is a need for an independent body charged with promoting and protecting
human rights in England and Wales and that . . . its preferred
option would be for this function to be discharged by an integrated
human rights and equality commission. How do you think this function
would best fit with the three options proposed by the Government
for a single equality body (a single integrated body, a "single
gateway", or an "overarching commission")?
2. While JUSTICE considers there to be a
compelling case for a human rights commission on its own merits,
if the proposal is for an integrated human rights and equality
commission or nothing, then JUSTICE would favour the discharge
of the human rights function through a single integrated body
ahead of the two alternatives ("single gateway" or "overarching
commission").
3. This might seem counter-intuitive in
light of our belief that the creation of a human rights body would
justified on its own merits. However, it is wholly consistent
with our view that equality is a human right and that, accordingly,
the proper site for conducting equality work is within the framework
of a human rights body. In the same way, a "single gateway"
or "overarching institution" approach would be less
preferable insofar as it tends to suggest a spurious philosophical
distinction between human rights and equality.
4. As such, accepting the discharge of human
rights functions within an integrated human rights and equality
commission is merely a pragmatic recognition by JUSTICE of the
practical niceties involved in marrying a set of established equalities
bodies together with a fresh human rights role.
Q2: If the option of two separate bodies
for human rights and equality was preferred, what functions and
powers relating to the protection of human rights (beyond the
elimination of discrimination and the promotion of equality of
opportunity) do you think it would be desirable or necessary for
the single equality body to have, if any?
5. Where the government decides in favour
of establishing two separate bodies (human rights and equality),
JUSTICE would see no harm in a single equality body nonetheless
being given a remit to draw attention to broader human rights
issues that arise in the context of specific equality work.
6. For instance, where a care home or young
offenders institution was investigated by a single equalities
body, JUSTICE considers would be entirely proper for it to have
regard to matters that engage Convention rights as well as relevant
provisions of any equalities legislation. The precise scope of
the human rights remit given to a separate equalities body would
vary, depending on what functions were given to the human rights
body. Such a remit would be particularly valuable where the human
rights body was given an educational focus, rather than one concerned
with casework and investigating individual complaints. By contrast,
where the human rights body was given its own investigatory function,
the case for giving the same functions to a single equalities
body would be correspondingly weaker.
Q3: In the light of the existence of the
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the intention to
establish Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Committee has
concluded that the body it proposes should be principally concerned
with promoting and protecting human rights in England and Wales.
It has also concluded that it will also be necessary to have a
body co-ordinating the promotion and protection of human rights
at a UK-wide level (to which it has given the provisional title
of the UK Advisory Council on Human Rights). What, in your view,
should be the composition of this UK-wide body? What functions
and duties should it have, and what funding would it require?
How should it be held to account?
7. A UK-wide umbrella body should be composed
of representatives from the constituent bodies, meeting regularly
to co-ordinate their activities on the national level. Aside from
this strategic role, its primary function should be to provide
a unified voice on human rights issues that arise nationally rather
than regionally, and to ensure that the monitoring of the UK's
obligations under international law is carried out on a consistent
basis.
8. Such a UK-wide body should be accountable
to the UK Parliament, reporting annually, and its activities overseen
by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Q4: The Committee has concluded that the
following functions and powers would be central to the work of
the independent human rights body which it proposes
— To promote understanding and awareness
of human rights (including not only Convention rights but also
rights embodied in international human rights instruments which
bind the UK);
— to conduct and commission research
and provide financial or other assistance for educational activities
in connection with promoting understanding and awareness of human
rights;
— to conduct inquiries into matters
of public policy and practice relating to human rights;
— to give guidance to, and promote
best practice in, public authorities in relation to human rights;
— to offer guidance and advice to
Ministers and to Parliament in connection with human rights;
— to publish reports on any of the
above matters;
— to assist in the provision of
advice and assistance to members of the public on ways to find
help to protect, assert or vindicate their rights;
— to support and promote access
to alternatives to litigation in disputes relating to the protection
of human rights;
— to apply to the courts for permission
to appear as amicus curiae in proceedings that involve
or are concerned with human rights; and
— to intervene as a third party
in legal proceedings relating to questions of principle involving
human rights.
Do you agree that this list includes all
those powers and functions which it would be essential for the
commission to have, and none that are unnecessary? Do you have
any advice to offer on how any of these individual functions or
powers should be given effect in detail?
9. JUSTICE agrees that the above list includes
all essential functions and powers consonant with the Paris Principles.
10. In relation to giving effect to particular
functions, JUSTICE concurs with the Committee's own view that
the important role of a human rights body is to promote a human
rights culture in England and Wales. As such, we would consider
it appropriate for particular emphasis to be given to the didactic
role of such a body, promoting awareness of human rights among
the public, advising public authorities on good practice in human
rights, and providing education and training in general.
Q5: The Committee wishes to consider further
whether it would be desirable for the independent body it proposes
to have the following powers and functions
— To provide assistance (including
financial assistance) to individuals to take test cases relating
to Convention rights questions;
— to be able to take cases in its
own name where a victim of a breach of Convention rights cannot
be identified;
— to apply for judicial review in
its own name in relation to questions connected with human rights.
Do you have any views on the desirability
or otherwise of giving these powers to the proposed commission?
Do you have any advice to offer on how any of these individual
functions or powers should be given effect in detail, or on what
restrictions might appropriately be applied to the exercise of
them?
11. While JUSTICE agrees that a human rights
body should be able to advise individuals on their Convention
rights, including the preparation of test cases, JUSTICE considers
that the provision of financial assistance for taking test cases
should be the proper function of the Legal Services Commission.
This would avoid any appearance of "human rights champerty"
by the independent body.
12. In relation to other litigation functions,
JUSTICE considers it may be prudent to allow the human rights
body to develop its role by way of amicus briefs and third
party interventions. Should these powers prove inadequate, further
litigation functions could be added at a later stage.
Q6: The Committee has concluded that the
Commission should be accountable to Parliament rather than the
Government. It has outlined a number of options for how the line
of accountability would work. Do you have any views on the details
of how the Commission would be held accountable and how its budget
would be determined? Is your view affected by whether or not the
body is an integrated human rights and equality commission?
13. The Paris Principles make clear the
need for any human rights body to be fully independent of government.
In view of the proximity of executive and legislative branches
under the Westminster party-system, JUSTICE considers it is particularly
important to ensure that any human rights body be established
with maximal independence (including financial independence) as
possible, in order to ensure that its role is not compromised.
14. Accordingly, JUSTICE favours the model
of the National Audit Office as discussed by the Committee in
its report (para 228). As a second best, JUSTICE would back the
funding-position of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration:
ie funded from Central government, but reporting to the Public
Administration Committee. In the case of a human rights commission,
JUSTICE considers that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is
the appropriate committee to oversee its activities and finances.
Q7: The Committee has concluded that there
should be some form of a statutory requirement to consult Parliament
on the appointment of commissioners to the new body. How do you
think the commissioners should be appointed? Is your view affected
by whether or not the body is an integrated human rights and equality
commission?
15. In JUSTICE's view, commissioners should
be appointed on the basis of their expertise in the fields of
human rights and (where the proposed body is an integrated one)
equality. Given the range of issues within these fields, it would
be appropriate also to have regard to a range of backgrounds and
experience that the Commission could draw on in approaching its
work. While this may initially lead to difficulties in establishing
a common and co-ordinated approach, JUSTICE is confident that
Commissioners appointed will be equal to the challenge.
16. As regards the manner of appointment,
JUSTICE concurs with the Committee's conclusion that there should
be a statutory requirement to consult Parliament on the issue
of appointment. JUSTICE further considers that the Committee is
best-placed to supervise such appointments to ensure the necessary
expertise.
Q8: If the option of a fully integrated body
was chosen, the Committee notes that commissioners could be appointed
to represent particular "strands" of the body's work
(age, disability, human rights, race, religion, sex discrimination,
sexual orientation, etc) or for particular functions (outreach,
research, litigation, advice, etc). Do you have any view on a
preferred option for the allocation of functions? Do you have
any view on the balance between part-time and full-time commissioners?
Is your view affected by whether or not the body is an integrated
human rights and equality commission?
17. In JUSTICE's view, it would be preferable
to have Commissioners appointed to particular functions rather
than to represent particular "strands" or issues. This
would have the merit of encouraging an integrated approach to
the Commission's work, wherein human rights and equalities issues
are the domain and the concern of all, rather than different areas
being viewed as the property of sectional interests.
18. JUSTICE favours the appointment of Commissioners
who collectively would bring to bear a broad range of expertise
and experience of human rights and (as appropriate) equality issues.
JUSTICE considers that this would ensure that each Commissioner
would have the benefit of drawing on the expertise of other Commissioners,
to ensure an integrated approach.
8 May 2003
| 
