An Equality and Human Rights Commission Worthy of the Name
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2005.320_1.x |
| Author | Lydia Clapinska,Anthony Lester |
| Date | 01 March 2005 |
| Published date | 01 March 2005 |
JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY
VOLUME 32, NUMBER 1, MARCH 2005
ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 169±86
An Equality and Human Rights Commission
Worthy of the Name
Anthony Lester* and Lydia Clapinska**
The Human Rights Act 1998 came fully into force on 2 October 2000,
enabling the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to be
relied on directly in our domestic courts.
1
The Act lacked provision for
a Human Rights Commission to advise and assist alleged victims in
bringing proceedings for breaches of Convention rights, to research,
intervene in court proceedings, and promote a culture of human rights,
although such a Commission had been created for Northern Ireland. A
White Paper has now been issued outlining plans for a Commission for
Equality and Human Rights. This paper considers the future role and
potential impact of the Commission and highlights opportunities that
have been missed since October 2000 in its absence. We focus on its
human rights aspects and summarize key conditions for the new
Commission's success.
In December 1996, Jack Straw MP, the then-Shadow Home Secretary, and
Paul Boateng MP, produced a consultation paper, Bringing Rights Home,
2
which set out the Labour Party's proposals to incorporate the Convention
rights into United Kingdom law. In March 1997, the Labour and Liberal
Democrat Joint Consultative Committee on Constitutional Reform, co-
169
ßCardiff University Law School 2005, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
* Blackstone Chambers, Blackstone House, Temple, London EC4Y 9BW,
England, Liberal Democrat peer and member of the Joint Committee on
Human Rights
** Barrister and Parliamentary Legal Officer at the Odysseus Trust, 193
Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AH, England
European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law in 1998.
2 J. Straw and P. Boateng, Bringing Rights Home: Labour's Plans to Incorporate the
European Convention on Human Rights into UK Law (1996), text published in [1997]
E.H.R.L.R. 71±80.
chaired by Robin Cook MP and Robert Maclennan MP, published its report. It
envisaged that there would be a human rights commissioner or commission,
or similar public body, to advise and assist those seeking protection of their
Convention rights, and to bring proceedings in its own name. On 1 May 1997,
the Labour Party was returned to power. In October 1997, the new govern-
ment published a White Paper,
3
together with the Bill itself. Neither White
Paper nor Bill made provision for a human rights commission. The govern-
ment explained that it was not yet persuaded of the need for such a body.
During the passage of the Human Rights Bill, there were many calls for a
commission to be established. Baroness Amos argued that:
we need a body which will raise public awareness, promote good practice,
scrutinise legislation, monitor policy developments and their impact, provide
independent advice to Parliament, and advise those who feel that their human
rights have been infringed.
4
Lord Woolf of Barnes, at that time Master of the Rolls, stated that:
The most important benefit of a Commission is that it will assist in creating a
culture in which human rights are routinely observed without the need for
continuous intervention by the courts. Human rights will only be a reality
when this is the situation.
5
During the Committee stage of the Bill, Baroness Williams of Crosby
warned of `an extraordinarily uncoordinated structure of concern for human
rights, with wide gaps between the organisations that currently exist';
6
such
gaps would not be filled without a human rights commissioner or commis-
sion; she continued, `I fear we may lose a great opportunity created by the
Bill . . . because of our unwillingness to take the final step.'
However, when the Human Rights Act was brought into force on 2
October 2000, there was no provision for a human rights commission and no
government commitment to establish such a commission. The time when a
human rights commission was most needed was in the period following
enactment of the Human Rights Act, when a culture of respect for human
rights could have been promoted, to give real meaning to the Act and to
ensure that its purposes were widely understood.
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The government, whilst resisting proposals for establishing a human rights
commission, suggested instead that the proposed parliamentary committee
170
3 Home Department, Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill (1997; Cm. 3782).
4 583, H.L. Debs., col. 846 (24 November 1997).
5 Foreword to S. Spencer and I. Bynoe, A Human Rights Commission, the Options for
Britain and Northern Ireland (1998).
6 583, H.L. Debs., col. 843 (24 November 1997).
ßCardiff University Law School 2005
To continue reading
Request your trial