Plans to merge the three existing equality commissions into one body have sparked concerns that its human rights function will be diluted.

Lucy Hickman gauges reaction from lawyers

Creating an umbrella body to take over the functions of the existing Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and adding in a human rights element is generally agreed by lawyers to be a good idea.

Dubbed the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, the new body will retain all the powers enjoyed by the commissions, but its human rights remit will be restricted to merely promotional activities.

This branch will not enjoy the enforcement powers of the other strands, to the frustration of those who maintain that a proper commission is needed alongside the Human Rights Act 1998.

A task force is being set up to refine the planned body before it is introduced in 2005.

Makbool Javaid, who heads the equality and diversity group at DLA and previously worked at the CRE, says there is no choice but to combine the bodies - particularly with the new discrimination grounds of sexual orientation, religious beliefs and age set to form part of UK law soon.

He says: 'It is to be welcomed in the sense that it will provide a one-stop shop service in relation to giving advice on a range of discrimination issues.

These different commissions couldn't continue, particularly with these new areas coming in - you couldn't have six commissions.'

Stephen Grosz, a human rights specialist and partner at London firm Bindman & Partners and the Gazette's human rights legal update columnist, says: 'It's definitely a good idea.

At the moment there are a number of commissions working on discrete areas but sometimes problems cut across more than one of these areas.

There may be more than one ground for discrimination.

By having one commission, these complaints can be investigated in a more methodical way.'

Mr Javaid, who is a member of the Law Society's employment law committee, explains: 'Individuals may not know what sort of discrimination they are suffering.

The problem with separate commissions is that where someone is a victim of double discrimination, one element may be overlooked.

For example, an ethnic minority woman may experience sex and race discrimination, but because the EOC is backing her, only the sex discrimination is dealt with.' He adds that the combined body will also be good for employers since they can now consult just one body to ensure they are complying with discrimination laws.

Roger Smith, director of London-based human rights organisation Justice, says that although he would have preferred a separate human rights commission, it makes sense for human rights to be considered along with equality.

'If you only had equality, how are you going to avoid getting stuck at some point? There are going to be times where there is no discrimination but a wrong has been committed.

'An example given is that of an old people's home where the residents are made to eat their breakfast on their chamber pots.

There's no discrimination here but it is clearly a breach of their human rights.

It's a pity the human rights arm won't have some investigative powers though.'

While some consider that the human rights arm should also have enforcement powers, others are worried that - even as currently proposed - the human rights remit will be enormous and thus a drain on valuable resources, adversely affecting the performance of the equality strands.

Alison Parkinson, the Law Society Council member for the Association of Women Solicitors and a legal adviser with Network Rail, says: 'It is definitely a concern that some rights will get lost in the bigger picture.

For example, a lot of people think that women have won the fight for equality.

But they still do not receive equal pay, job prospects and promotions.

It is a concern that this issue will be swallowed by others in the new organisation.'

Mr Grosz says: 'On the limited information we have at the moment, the new body will consolidate the powers of the equality commissions and not reduce them.

I'm pleased that there is going to be a human rights element but its powers are going to be entirely promotional and it will not have enforcement powers, which is a pity.'

The promotional activities, he says, should include research, training, publishing, and possibly third-party interventions in public interest, human rights-related court cases.

Mr Javaid says that although he welcomes a one-stop shop for equality, incorporating human rights, he does have some qualms.

'One has to have some misgivings.

It is no secret that there will be some tension between the different agencies.

The DRC has not been all that keen on the idea.

They haven't been around as long so don't have the same sort of support within government and society, and now they are being amalgamated into one body with the two other agencies which have built up a lot of experience.'

He adds there are also currently significant differences in levels of resources, with the CRE receiving more than the other two agencies, which could lead to conflict.

'There is concern among people involved in race relations that there will be a decrease in resources to the CRE, particularly with human rights and the other new equality areas - sexual orientation, religious belief and age - becoming part of the commission's responsibility.

'Sometimes certain areas need to be given priority and this may not be possible when the commission has to deal with all these areas - particularly when age discrimination is added in 2006 since this is so all-encompassing, everyone could be affected.'

He adds: 'Human rights is a very broad area.

It touches a considerable range of issues.

Asylum, for example, is a huge human rights issue: the commission could be swamped just looking at that.

It's not going to be easy to deal with all these issues in a way that is going to meet the expectations of all the lobby groups.'

It will be important, all agree, that human rights fights for its place as the new organisation develops and does not get pushed to the sidelines.

Mr Smith says in some ways, the human rights lobby got more than it expected given that the government's original consultation paper was 'very thin on human rights'.

'The government was asking how human rights relate to equality but didn't seem terribly interested in the answer.

It caused some spirited debate as to what should be done.'

He says there was 'clearly a big row in government' over the role of human rights and whether it should encourage them.

'The government's concern is that cases are going to be brought against it.

The home secretary, in particular, must be annoyed by the pinprick of human rights.'

Mr Grosz agrees that the government's record on human rights has been patchy - with security measures introduced following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, and asylum having a huge impact.

'In some ways, it has been very disappointing.

It is not all bad news though.

It introduced the Human Rights Act, established the [Parliamentary] Joint Select Committee on Human Rights and is now setting up this commission,' he adds.

Mr Smith emphasises the importance of the body being properly resourced.

'Funding is always a concern.

It will need to get enough money.

There must be some savings from bringing three organisations together, although the human rights is a new thing.

Most people must be alert to the danger that the government will be wanting to cut back budgets.'

Ms Parkinson adds: 'Although in broad terms you cannot but welcome the idea of the proposed commission, the existing commissions are already underfunded.

If additional resources are not available, the commisson's ability to help people will be impaired.'

Mr Javaid adds that the new body will have to be given time to bed down: 'It's quite a significant development and it may take time for the organisation to develop the expertise needed to give comprehensive advice.

'Expectations are going to have to be managed - it's not going to be able to deliver everything straight away.

It has to work out what the priorities are and establish a mode of working.

'The best model would be an agency which takes the best elements from all the different commissions and moulds it together to provide a comprehensive service for employers and complainants alike.'

It is a tough brief, but having taken the decision to amalgamate three such high-profile bodies, the pressure will be on the government to deliver.

Lucy Hickman is a freelance journalist