1 Introduction
1. The launch of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC) in October 2007 was an important landmark in the development
of the UK's human rights framework. Our predecessors laid the
groundwork for the EHRC with an inquiry into the case for a human
rights commission in March 2003. They said "a human rights
commission, probing, questioning and encouraging public bodies,
could have a real impact in driving forward the development of
a culture of respect for human rights." [1]
In scrutinising the legislation which established the Commission,
the Committee said:[2]
The appearance in precise legislative form of
the intention to create the [EHRC] represents the most important
milestone reached so far in establishing the institutional support
which is needed to achieve wider implementation of the Human Rights
Act and respect for human rights, particularly within public authorities.
With its vision of the achievement of a fairer and more equal
society, the Bill is the most important legislative measure for
the advancement of human rights in this country since the Human
Rights Act itself
2. The EHRC is a non-departmental public body, required
to encourage and support the development of a society in which:
- people's ability to achieve
their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination;
- there is respect for and protection of each individual's
human rights;
- there is respect for the dignity and worth of
each individual;
- each individual has an equal opportunity to participate
in society; and
- there is mutual respect between groups based
on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect
for equality and human rights.[3]
3. In relation to human rights, the EHRC must:
- promote understanding of the
importance of human rights;
- encourage good practice in relation to human
rights;
- promote awareness, understanding and protection
of human rights; and
- encourage public authorities to comply with section
6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which makes it unlawful for public
authorities to act in a way which is incompatible with European
Convention rights.[4]
4. Bearing in mind that equality is itself a human
right recognised in all of the major human rights treaties, we
have taken a strong interest in a good deal of the EHRC's work,
inviting the Commission to submit its views to our inquiries and
other scrutiny work, and occasionally addressing recommendations
to the Commission. When we heard oral evidence from Trevor Phillips,
the Chair of the EHRC, in October 2008, we intended this to be
the first in a series of annual opportunities to discuss significant
human rights issues and the EHRC's work.
5. Regrettably, the EHRC's work during 2009 was overshadowed
by disputes between a number of commissioners and Mr Phillips
which attracted considerable media interest. In addition, the
EHRC's annual accounts for 2006-08 were qualified by the Comptroller
and Auditor General, raising questions about the EHRC's management
and alleged conflicts of interest involving Mr Phillips. The resignation
of the EHRC's chief executive, Nicola Brewer, on her appointment
as UK High Commissioner in South Africa, added to the organisation's
difficulties and there were suggestions that the working relationship
between Dr Brewer and Mr Phillips had been problematic.[5]
6. Consequently, we decided to use our annual oral
evidence session with the Chair of the EHRC to discuss the various
problems of leadership and management which had emerged into public
view during the year, and the extent to which the EHRC had fulfilled
our and our predecessor's vision of what a human rights and equality
commission should be. We were also able to discuss the EHRC's
human rights strategy, which was published on 10 November, the
day of our oral evidence with Mr Phillips and the three colleagues
who accompanied him. Whilst we did not issue terms of reference,
as it was originally intended just to hold oral evidence sessions,
an announcement was issued of an "annual evidence session
with the Chair of the EHRC to discuss the work of the Commission
during the last year. The Committee will also hear from four former
EHRC Commissioners". The four former EHRC commissioners gave
evidence, principally to discuss why they had resigned, on 20
October 2009. On 28 October, the Committee requested "short
written contributions about the work of the Commission" by
5 November and Mr Phillips gave evidence on 10 November. Rt Hon
Harriet Harman MP, who has ministerial responsibility for the
EHRC, and Jonathan Rees, the Director-General of the Government
Equalities Office, gave evidence on 15 December. We received written
evidence from several former commissioners, Dr Brewer and a number
of NGOs which have dealings with the EHRC. We are grateful for
all of the information and evidence we received and we record
our thanks to the EHRC which dealt quickly and thoroughly with
our various requests for information and documents.
7. Our work covered two broad themes: the EHRC's
record to date as a national human rights institution; and the
governance and leadership of the EHRC under Mr Phillips' chairmanship.
We comment on the EHRC's human rights work as a critical friend
of the Commission, sharing its ambition to foster a human rights
culture in the UK. Our views can be found in the next chapter.
We have found it difficult to get to the bottom of all the disputes
between the commissioners who resigned and Mr Phillips: in some
cases, there would appear to be irreconcilable differences of
view about relatively straightforward matters. Having heard both
sides of the story, and given all concerned the opportunity to
comment on the principal evidence we received, we offer our impressions
of what has gone wrong in chapter 3.
1 Fourth Report, Session 2002-03, The Case for a
Human Rights Commission, HL Paper 67-I, HC 489-I (hereafter
Case for a Human Rights Commission) paragraph 239. Back
2
Sixteenth Report, Session 2004-05, Equality Bill, HL 98,
HC 497 (hereafter Equality Bill) paragraph 5. Back
3
Section 3, Equality Act 2006. Back
4
Section 9, Equality Act 2006. Back
5
See paragraph 63. Back
|
