24. Memorandum from PARITY
INTRODUCTION
PARITY is a voluntary organisation, formed in
1986, whose main object has been the promotion and protection
of the equal rights of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights under the law.
Through litigation in courts applying European Union or European
Convention law binding (by statute or treaty) in the UK PARITY
has instigated cases resulting in equal qualifying ages for men
and women for exemption from NHS prescription charges (1995),
for winter fuel payments (2000) and for local travel concessions
(2003), and also equal treatment for widowers and widows in survivors
social security benefits and in bereavement tax allowances (2000).
It remains engaged with the inequality between men's and women's
state pension ages and other inequalities of treatment associated
with that inequality.
RESPONSES TO
COMMITTEES QUESTIONS
1. PARITY agrees with the Committe's preferred
option of an integrated human (including "equal") rights
commission. For a time it had considered that sex discrimination
in the public field—the subject of Article 14 and/or EU
Directive 79/7—stood somewhat apart from sex discrimination
in the private field, governed by the Sex Discrimination and Equal
Pay Acts and, of course, Article 141 of the Treaty on EU, but
the recent ECJ Niemi case (C-351/00) judgment has, seemingly
(but to PARITY's satisfaction), construed a state pension similar
to that of the UK as "pay" for the purpose of that Article.
We believe, therefore, that any difference between public and
private equal rights can often be too blurred to attempt a demarcation.
2. PARITY can see no case for any separate
"equality" body having any responsibility for "equal
rights" (as opposed to "equal opportunities").
If there were to be a separate "equal opportunities"
body, PARITY would expect its functions and powers to be as set
out in the second column of the table in paragraph 179 of the
Sixth Report, but excluding "discrimination" by a private
person which if committed by a public authority would constitute
a breach of Article 14.
3. PARITY, having members throughout the
UK, all of whose concerns in relation to the inequalities under
the state pension scheme are the same, would be sorry not to see
a single UK-wide Human Rights Commission at the earliest opportunity.
4. It is PARITY's view that the "Human
Rights" body should have all the powers and functions set
out in this Question and in Question 5, and be prepared to use
them. Although the English Equal Opportunities Commission, with
whom Parity has had somewhat mixed relations over PARITY's 17
years of existence, has the duties outlined in paragraph 146,
it has tended to claim "shortage of resources" or "other
priorities" for failure to bring or support cases of the
nature of those mentioned in the above Introduction. This could,
in part, perhaps be blamed on the body's unfortunate name. "Equal
Opportunities" gives no hint that its priorities should be
"Equal Rights".
5. Experience has taught PARITY the importance
of managing test case litigation in an orderly way that leads
to the steady development of the law in question. A weak case
that fails can often inhibit desirable development, and only an
organisation that takes a wide and long view of the steps needed
to reach equality of treatment, and can control the order in which
test case are brought, can ensure the quickest and broadest progress
in equal rights. For this the Human Rights body will need all
the powers and functions here listed.
6. So long as the principal body is not
saddled with "equal opportunities" functions, PARITY
agrees that it should be accountable to Parliament rather than
to the Government. For any "equal opportunities" body,
however, accountability to the Government would seem more appropriate.
7. PARITY suggests that the appointment
of commissioners to the Human Rights body be made by the Joint
Committee after consultation with the Lord Chancellor.
8. PARITY's inclination would be for commissioners
appointed on the basis of their overall understanding of, and
general sympathy with, Human Rights as a single, yet all-embracing,
culture.
1 May 2003
| 
