Giving rights a home

In the first of a regular column on human rights, Roger Smith makes the case for a single equality body for the UK

The Human Rights Act 1998 is the kind of legislation that governments pass only in their first term when ministers can still remember the impotence of opposition.

Later, they get more ambivalent about giving away power.

This is all too evident in the current debate about whether a commission should see through full implementation of the Act and the attendant 'culture change' that is required.

Second-term trepidation may yet shackle the full consequences of a great constitutional reform.

The question of a commission was first raised in 'Bringing Rights Home', the White Paper that preceded the publication of the Bill.

The ball was thrown to the then putative Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Domestic analysis and overseas comparison suggested that 'we need a human rights commission ...

[with] a clear mission [and] the powers and functions to fulfil that mission'.

Meanwhile, from the bowels of Europe arose a complication that might yet be an opportunity.

In furtherance of an equalities agenda, the EU requires anti-discrimination legislation, supplementing existing grounds of sex, race and disability with three new 'strands' - sexual orientation, religion and age.

The UK government plans compliance by the end of 2006.

In this country, the three existing strands have a commission each.

It occurred to ministers, fronted by Barbara Roche, that, on the one hand, six commissions might be a bit much and, on the other, that the three new strands would be unhappy shoved in with the existing three.

So, why not just have one single equality body that would do for everyone? This initially brought predictable squeals of pain from some in the existing commissions, most notably the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) - only formed in 2000 -which feared being overwhelmed.

However, although the DRC still opposes it, the logic of a combined approach appears to be gathering favour within the equality movement.

A single equality body raises more issues than how you combine the regional offices of the Commission for Racial Equality with the more centralised operations of the other two commissions - formidable though such operational questions are.

The government's consultation paper, Equality and Diversity: making it happen, recognises 'the complementary nature of equality and human rights'.

However, it points out that human rights have tended to be associated with civil and political rights.

Equality legislation, by contrast, has focused on social and economic protection.

This might have led to a rational debate on the respective merits of a focused or comprehensive approach - two commissions as in Northern Ireland or one as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

However, re-enter the politicians.

Equality is one thing, human rights another.

The home secretary, in particular, expresses himself fed up with 'triumphalist' human rights lawyers and 'airy-fairy' civil libertarians.

Some ministers argue that it would be mad to set up a human rights commission, the predictable focus of which might be the treatment of asylum seekers; the conduct of pre-emptive wars and anti-terrorist measures.

On all of these, they argue that the government need create no further rod for its own back.

On the other hand, the big civil rights issues will be litigated and explored in any event.

The core job that needs to be done by a commission is rather different - to advance our ideas of human rights and to grapple with its relevance to local authorities and care providers, hospitals and other public bodies.

The main role should be, as the joint committee argues, 'to foster a culture of respect for human rights in public authorities through raising awareness'.

Public authorities need encouragement to treat people with appropriate dignity and guidance in making proportionate judgements over matters such as the degree of privacy in an old people's home or appropriate recognition of the rights to family life of those in their care.

This requires a massive educational effort that must come from outside government and cannot be met by the rickety resources of the not-for-profit sector.

Any new commission needs a double brief that sits well with existing government priorities on equality, social inclusion and the improvement of public services - to extend the concepts of human rights beyond core civil and political liberties; and to infuse our culture with a new respect for human dignity.

Results can be obtained without vast resources.

The human rights lobby has argued for a stand-alone commission to take these further, fearing - like the DRC - that its concerns might get lost in a monolithic operation.

However, it is now uniting itself around the pragmatic choice of an integrated human rights and equalities commission with a culture change focus.

For ministers concerned that human rights are developing with too narrow a litigation focus, an integrated commission offers the best opportunity to encourage a broader approach.

Lawyers will appreciate the magnitude of the constitutional change represented by the Human Rights Act.

Its passage was an achievement beyond spin and the creation of an integrated commission gives ministers an opportunity to maximise its effectiveness.

Roger Smith is director of the human rights organisation Justice