23. Human Rights NGOs Framework Response[159]
On 19 March 2003 the Joint Committee on Human
Rights published its report, The Case for a Human Rights Commission,
the culmination of its inquiry into whether or not there is a
need for an independent body charged with the protection and promotion
of human rights. It also issued a consultation document setting
out questions to prompt further thought from a wide range of organisations.
The undersigned human rights NGOs are pleased to be able to submit
a joint framework response to the Committee which reflects our
views on the principles involved. It is anticipated that individual
NGOs may also submit their own detailed responses to the consultation.
We welcome the JCHR's recommendation that a
human rights commission be established. We also agree with the
JCHR's conclusion that, in view of the Government's consultation
on a single equality body, an integrated equality and human rights
commission is the preferable structural option. As the JCHR notes,
the option of separate commissions is a viable alternative and
we have debated the advantages and disadvantages of different
structures in the past. For the reasons explained below, we are
now of the view that if a single equality body is to be created,
it must have a human rights remit. The priority for ourselves
is to concentrate our thinking on how an integrated body can effectively
bring equality and human rights together.
Because of existing arrangements in Northern
Ireland and those which are proposed in Scotland, we restrict
ourselves to consideration of the new commission's human rights
functions in relation to England and Wales. [160]This
response sets out some key principles that we think are fundamental
to ensuring the effectiveness of such a commission.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1. Establishment of a single body
We support the establishment of an Equality
and Human Rights Commission which would have both equalities and
human rights issues within its remit. The Human Rights Act treats
equality as a fundamental human right, as do many international
human rights treaties. But human rights have something else to
offer: a holistic approach to equality. Rather than seeing only
a person's race, gender, age, disability, religion or sexuality,
human rights treats people as whole human beings. The underlying
value of human rights is its emphasis on the equal worth and dignity
of each individual. This approach could be valuable to an Equality
and Human Rights Commission.
Human rights practitioners share many common
goals with our colleagues in the equality field. Two of these
are particularly relevant. We want to ensure that people's human
dignity is respected and valued at all times, and we want to ensure
that the services public authorities provide respect people's
specific and individual needs. On these grounds too it is sensible
for equality and human rights to be brought together within one
integrated body, ending the artificial divide between equality
and human rights that has been created by the UKs current institutional
infrastructure. We believe the inclusion of human rights in an
Equality and Human Rights Commission would complement, not conflict
with, its work on equalities issues.
2. Mainstreaming human rights
We believe that human rights should not be seen
to be an additional "strand"; instead human rights should
be mainstreamed throughout the commission and its work. In practice
this would mean that every issue considered by the Equality and
Human Rights Commission would be looked at from a human rights
perspective as well as an equality perspective. We suggest that
this will have little impact on the body's work in the private
sector, but could be a powerful additional tool in relation to
service provision. We suggest this approach because we think that
human rights principles have a great deal to offer in helping
to make equality a reality in Britain today. Many equality issues
are also human rights issues, for example: the discriminatory
use of DNR notices affecting older people or disabled people;
sexual, religious or racial harassment; and the failure to provide
appropriate support for disabled people who want to live independently.
It must not be forgotten that the three new "strands"
(age, sexual orientation and religious belief) have to rely on
human rights standards in relation to improving service provision.
Expectations will be raised that the single equalities body will
be able to deal with such issues but implementation of the Article
13 directives alone will not enable this to happen.
There also exist human rights issues that do
not necessarily involve discrimination but should fall within
the remit of the new commission, for example: the treatment of
older people and disabled people in residential care homes; access
to medical care; domestic violence and problems facing the travelling
community. It is of concern to us that debate around human rights
has focused on its adversarial role rather than on an understanding
of the essential role that human rights can play in improving
the lives of substantial groups of people. In the absence of a
body to promote human rights, there has been limited opportunity
to make use of the good practice principles underlying the Human
Rights Act, as the Government intended when the legislation was
introduced. An integrated Equality and Human Rights Commission
could make this possible. Mainstreaming human rights would allow
for a more coherent approach to equality, more effective promotion
of good practice in relation to human rights and equality and
a more efficient use of resources.
3. Helping to balance competing rights
Mainstreaming human rights would have an additional
benefit: it could help to provide the "glue" that would
enable a range of different equality areas to work closely together
and resolve their differences. It is inevitable that, from time
to time, there will be clashes of opinion between different equality
strands, for example, a Muslim restaurant owner who does not want
to allow a blind person to bring their assistance dog into his
restaurant. We suggest that the principle of proportionality and
the concept of balancing rights, both enshrined in Human Rights
Act case law and decision-making, could be a useful tool in such
circumstances, in helping to see where the balance of rights might
be drawn, resolving disputes in a way which recognises the rights
and dignity of both parties.
4. A strategic approach
We think it is vitally important for the Equality
and Human Rights Commission to learn from existing institutions
in the way it approaches protection for human rights. We can see
much that it could learn from the existing equality bodies and
are persuaded by their experience, particularly that of the longer
established Commissions, that an effective way to make change
happen is to ensure a focus on systemic issues and to promote
issues of good practice widely across sectors; prevention is after
all better than cure. We believe that the Equality and Human Rights
Commission should always act strategically in relation to human
rights, using a range of strategies and powers to tackle systematic
human rights violations linking these to its work on equality
where it is possible to do so.
5. An approach to human rights which focuses
on cultural change
It will be important for the Equality and Human
Rights Commission to think carefully about how it approaches human
rights issues. We believe it should avoid a legalistic approach,
working instead on showing how human rights are something which
we all can and should uphold in our lives by promoting the values
and principles that underpin human rights standards—many
of which have strong roots in British society. Again we can learn
much from the existing equality bodies' track record in making
equality relevant to the lives of ordinary people. There is a
pressing need for an approach to human rights which emphasises
the need for cultural change: this is something that NGOs alone
can never deliver. An Equalities and Human Rights Commission,
through education, issuing good practice guidance and undertaking
other capacity building, has a vital role to play in filling this
gap.
We hope to have more opportunities to participate
in future debate, both with the Joint Committee on Human Rights
and with our colleagues in the equalities field, to discuss how
we might move forward with this exciting opportunity in a way
which makes equality and human rights real for us all.
15 May 2003
159 This framework response is submitted on behalf
of the following organisations: Liberty, Justice, Charter 88,
Bar Human Rights Committee, British Institute of Human Rights,
Institute for Public Policy Research and Francesca Klug, Centre
for the Study of Human Rights, LSE. Back
160
This reponse also does not consider provision for children's rights
in England and we await the report of the JCHR into the case for
an English children's commissioner. Back
| 
