26. Memorandum from Rights of Women
INTRODUCTION
1. Rights of Women welcomes the publication
of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on The Case for
a Human Rights Commission (HL paper 67-1) and is pleased to
participate in this further consultation exercise.
2. Rights of Women is an industrial and
provident society, which was founded in 1975 to promote the interests
of women in relation to the law. We run a free, national confidential
telephone legal advice help line for women. We specialise in advising
in family law, especially domestic violence and Children Act matters.
Rights of Women works to attain justice and equality by informing,
educating and empowering women on their legal rights. We are a
membership organisation and our activities include producing publications,
organising conferences and training courses, and doing policy
and research work.
QUESTION ONE
3. Rights of Women welcomes the Committee's
endorsement of the need for a Human Rights Commission, as advocated
in our previous submission. [165]
4. We would prefer that a Human Rights Commission
be constituted separately from any Single Equality Body, as we
believe that this would offer the best comprehensive protection
for women's human rights in both the employment and other spheres.
We are concerned that a Single Equality Body may effectively decrease
the amount of funding and attention given to sex equality issues
in comparison with other equality strands, reflecting the current
situation in which the Equal Opportunities Commission receives
less funding than the Commission for Racial Equality or the Disability
Rights Commission. With the addition of a human rights component,
we are concerned that this will make funding for all strands even
tighter. We believe that separate Human Rights and Equalities
Commissions would be in less danger of being overwhelmed by their
workloads.
5. However, as we strongly favour the existence
of a Human Rights Commission, if the choice is to have a joint
Equality and Human Rights Body or to have no Human Rights Commission,
we would support the creation of a joint body. In this event,
we would prefer that the body be an overarching commission, as
this would allow joint working between different equality strands
and would facilitate the addressing of issues concerning multiple
discrimination.
6. However regardless of how such a body
or bodies are constituted, we believe that in line with the Paris
Principles[166]
there are elements of a commission which must be in place, including:
— independence of the Commission from
Government, to ensure credibility with the public;
— adequate funding to ensure that the
Commission's work may be done to the standard needed;
— diverse and independent Commissioners
appointed through a transparent recruitment process.
QUESTION TWO
7. A separate equality body should have
a substantial amount of overlap in its work with that of a Human
Rights Commission, sharing knowledge, cases and best practice
to ensure that a human rights culture and caselaw develops in
the employment sphere. Both bodies should work effectively with
the Women and Equality Unit.
8. The Single Equality Body must have a
human rights mandate, to empower it both to address this aspect
of individual cases, and to investigate and act upon discrimination
in institutions. [167]A
strong relationship with a separate Human Rights Commission would
allow other human rights issues related to women—for example
domestic violence—to be addressed by such a Commission.
This is particularly important given such areas of women's human
rights are currently not addressed by the Equal Opportunities
Commission.
9. We also believe that a Single Equality
Body should incorporate use of the Convention on the Elimination
of all forms of Discrimination Against Women into all aspects
of its work, including its remit regarding education and cultural
change. Rights of Women strongly believe that the Government should
sign up to the Optional Protocol to the Convention. [168]Should
this happen, the Body should promote and explain this development
to the public and should adapt its work to make maximum use of
the Protocol.
QUESTION THREE
10. Rights of Women agree with the Committee's
conclusion that the Human Rights Commission should be principally
concerned with protecting and promoting human rights in England
and Wales, and that it will be necessary to have a body co-ordinating
such work at a UK-wide level. This body should help to meet the
UK Government's obligation under international law to ensure compliance
with international human rights standards throughout the UK.
11. Such a body should be composed of representatives
from each of the human rights commissions, plus diverse community
and non-governmental organisation representatives. This would
help ensure meaningful connections between the public and those
working to protect their rights, and would ensure emergent or
key issues on the ground were raised at the highest level.
12. This body should not attempt to standardise
practice between the commissions, but should rather provide a
space for representatives to share best practice and connect with
diverse community perspectives. It should also network with similar
groups both nationally and internationally to inform this work.
We agree with the Committee's finding in paragraph 219 of the
report that such a body should be small, independent and have
the "power and funds to commission independent advice and
assistance".
13. The body should be held to account in
the same way as the Human Rights Commission. Our preferred option
for this is outlined at paragraph 22.
QUESTION FOUR
14. Rights of Women agree that the powers
and functions listed and circulated by the Committee would be
essential for a Commission to have.
15. We are concerned that the Commission
would have to secure substantial funding to be able to offer advice
to individuals. It may be appropriate for funding to be made available
to non-governmental organisations to provide some such advice
in addition to the Commission's in-house service. We support the
Committee's recommendation that the Commission should not be an
overly litigious body.
16. As prescribed by the Paris Principles,
we believe that for the Commission's powers to undertake public
inquiries to be effective, the Commission must be able to "hear
any person and obtain any information and any documents necessary
for assessing situations falling within its competence".[169]
A power to order disclosure of relevant information should be
a part of the Commission's mandate in this area.
17. We agree with Liberty that the Commission's
work should further include tackling the underlying causes of
discrimination where this is linked to the protected grounds.
[170]This
would allow the Commission to engage with factors contributing
to disadvantage, including domestic violence and immigration and
asylum issues. Overall we believe that a Single Equality Body,
whether inclusive of a Human Rights Commission or not, must be
supported by a strong Single Equality Act.
QUESTION FIVE
18. Rights of Women believes that all three
suggested powers should be given to the Commission. We would however
want to be assured that adequate funding would be available to
enable the Commission to discharge these functions effectively.
19. We believe that the Commission should
provide assistance (including financial assistance) to individuals
to take test cases relating to Convention rights questions, where
appropriate. Well established connections with grassroots organisations
would facilitate such cases coming forward.
20. The Commission should be able to take
cases in its own name where a victim of a breach of Convention
rights cannot be identified.
21. The Commission should be able to apply
for judicial review in its own name in relation to questions connected
with human rights. We believe that this will be an essential tool
in allowing the Commission to fulfil its mandate. We are very
concerned that the UK Commission does not face the limitation
suffered by the Northern Ireland Commission, where the Commission
cannot rely on the Convention rights when bringing proceedings
in its own name.
QUESTION SIX
22. We agree with the Committee that the
Commission should be held accountable to Parliament. A key issue
here is independence from Government in terms of both funding
and appointments, in line with the Paris Principles. We agree
that the current arrangements for ensuring accountability of the
equality bodies could be improved, and would therefore prefer
a model such as that suggested in paragraph 228 of the report,
utilising the relative independence of the National Audit Office
and the Public Accounts Committee.
23. Parliament should be involved on a statutory
basis in setting the budget for the Commission to ensure a measure
of democratic control.
24. In line with the requirements and spirit
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we would wish the Commission
to operate a policy of a presumption of disclosure with regard
to official information, and to make as much information as possible
easily available to the public in accessible form. This would
increase transparency, and boost public confidence in the Commission.
QUESTION SEVEN
25. Rights of Women endorse the Committee's
recommendation that there should be a statutory requirement to
consult Parliament on the appointment of commissioners to the
new body. We believe that Commissioners should be appointed through
the current system used to appoint civil servants.
26. We would wish the Commissioners to be
appointed in line with the diversity requirement set out in the
Paris Principles, namely "to ensure the pluralist representation
of the social forces of civilian society involved in the protection
and promotion of human rights".[171]
Involvement of local communities and minority groups is essential.
As set out in the Paris Principles, we believe such a Commission
should set up regional or local groups as needed to ensure the
effective discharging of its functions. [172]Transparency
in the process will also be vital.
27. We would suggest that at least 50% of
Commissioners should be female, reflecting the gender balance
in the population as a whole.
28. We do not believe that these requirements
are affected by whether or not the body is an integrated human
rights and equality commission.
QUESTION EIGHT
29. In the event of a fully integrated Commission
being established, we believe that the Commissioners could have
multiple areas of expertise, allowing them to offer a mixture
of perspectives and skills to the Commission. As long as all the
areas of expertise and work were covered, it might not be necessary
to choose between a skills based or experience based structure.
30. There should be the option of part-time
or flexible working for Commissioners, to allow women with children
or other care responsibilities to take on such roles.
30 April 2003
165 Joint Committee on Human Rights, The case for
a Human Rights Commission Interim Report, Appendices to the
Minutes of Evidence No 46 at Ev 219, HL paper 160, HC 1142 2002. Back
166
Principles relating to the status and functioning of national
institutions for protection and promotion of human rights, endorsed
by the Commission on Human Rights at resolution 1992/54 and by
the General Assembly in resolution A/RES/48/134 of 20 December
1993. Back
167
Rights of Women support Sarah Spencer's argument on this point
given in the Institute for Public Policy Research paper Should
the Single Equality Commission be able to protect human rights?
Published December 2002, see section 3. Back
168
Harriet Samuel, The Optional Protocol should not be Optional,
Rights of Women Bulletin Summer 2001. Back
169
see note 2, Section C, paragraph 2. Back
170
See Liberty, Briefing on the multi-departmental consultation
Equality and Diversity Making it Happen, paragraph 5, February
2003. Back
171
Section B, Paragraph 1. Back
172
ibid., Section C, Paragraph 5. Back
| 
