Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human

Rights - Oxfams response to the White Paper

Summary

Oxfam believes that poverty, social exclusion and discrimination represent a denial of
human rights, preventing people from exercising their full rights (e.g. to housing,
adequate health care, education, to an adequate standard of living). In our view,
there are also important connections between economic inequality, and inequality
based on social divisions such as age, disability, race, gender, sexual orientation,
and religious affiliation.

We recognise the progress that has been made since 1997 in developing a legal and
institutional framework to tackle inequalities and promote human rights. We welcome
the Governments proposals to establish a Commission for Equality and Human
Rights (CEHR), and believe that this body can play a significant role in developing a
culture of human rights in the UK. Our recommendations are summarised below:

The suggestion that the CEHR should consult the voluntary and community
sector on its strategic plan is useful. However, Oxfam believes the CEHR will
have to be much more radical and innovative if it wishes to engage with
marginalized men and women. We believe that the CEHR could usefully
engage in dialogue with the Department for International Development on
participatory approaches. It could also pioneer innovative participatory ways
of working with groups facing poverty, social exclusion and discrimination. We
suggest that the CEHR establish fora for regular structured input into policy
and decision-making by people facing poverty, social exclusion and
discrimination at UK, devolved and regional levels.

Provision of grant-giving powers for the CEHR to assist local organisations

and groups, as the White Paper recommends, will undoubtedly be helpful. But
further action will also be required to support the voluntary sector. We
endorse the proposals set out by the Institute for Public Policy Research1 for
the CEHR to be involved in: information provision about human rights;
development of case study materials, highlighting the application of human
rights principles; dissemination of informal best practice codes; and guidance
on staff training.

Rather than the burden remaining with individual users to seek to claim their
rights, the emphasis should shift so that service deliverers take account of
human rights in the design and implementation of services as a matter of
course. Oxfam agrees with the Joint Committee on Human Rights (para 32,
Eleventh report) that a positive duty should be imposed on public authorities
to promote human rights.

We concur with the argument of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that:
Involvement in the reporting processes under the various international human
rights instruments would be a valuable function of any human rights
commission (para 118, Sixth report). The Commission should also have the
ability to engage in international co-operation in support of human rights
 Oxfam welcomes the recent announcement by the Deputy Minister for
Women and Equality at the EDF Conference (14 July 2004) that: one of
the first tasks of the CEHR will be to review the legislative framework to
ensure that it meets the needs of a modern Britain, with the aim of bringing
forward a Single Equality Act. Although we would have preferred a Single
Equality Act to have been introduced either at the same time as the
Commission for Equality and Human Rights or more advisedly before
setting up the Commission, we are glad that the Government is committed to
taking this step. We believe that this proposal should be enacted as swiftly as
possible.

Whilst there will clearly be a sponsoring department within government, it is

essential that the role and work of the CEHR should not be influenced by one
department (or Minister) alone. In Oxfams view, the CEHR should have
strong links with, and influence within, other government departments through
a designated Standing Inter-Ministerial Group.

Oxfam believes that the CEHR should have a direct reporting relationship to a
parliamentary committee, preferably the Joint Committee on Human Rights
(with an expanded Equalities remit).

Bearing in mind the need to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the

operation of the CEHR, it is essential that the new body has sufficient
resources available to carry out its role effectively. Overall, it should be better
resourced than the combined budgets of the existing commissions. The
budget should be determined by Parliament rather than the Executive.

The work of Oxfams UK Poverty Programme

Oxfam GB established a UK Poverty Programme (UKPP) in the mid 1990s in

response to a concern that it should begin to address poverty at home in a more
systematic way. The overall purpose of the UKPP is to have a direct impact on
poverty and social exclusion in the UK, by strengthening the skills and capacity of the
community and voluntary sector to tackle poverty more effectively, and by direct
lobbying and campaigning based on Oxfams domestic and international programme
experience. The UKPPs work is organised around four key programme themes:
sustainable livelihoods; humanitarian protection; participation; and gender and race
equality.

Oxfam has a long-standing commitment to the promotion of gender equality, both

internationally and at home. We recognise that women are in the majority in the
poorest groups, that men and women have different needs, and that
solutions to poverty will not be effective unless they address power relations and
resource imbalances between women and men. We have piloted gender analysis
within services as a means of highlighting gender assumptions, identifying
inequalities, and developing action in response. We are now seeking to develop a
programme of work around race inequality that will focus on addressing the causes,
and support the empowerment of black and minority ethnic communities in seeking
solutions; this will learn both from our international experience and our work on
gender inequality.

Introduction to Oxfams response

'The worst thing about living in poverty is the way it gives others permission to treat
you as if you don't matter, as if your opinions don't count, as if you have nothing to
contribute. We realise that this doesn't show up in the statistics, but there is a stigma
attached to living in poverty. If you make policy about us and not with us, then you
reinforce that stigma.'

Comment by community activist at All Party Parliamentary Group on Poverty

meeting, 27 February 2002

Oxfam regards poverty as a state of powerlessness, in which men and women are
unable to exercise their basic human rights or control virtually any aspect of their
lives. Poverty is the result of deeply rooted inequalities in power relationships,
institutionalised through policies and practices at the state, societal and household
levels.

In a previous publication on human rights in the UK2, we argued that poverty, social
exclusion and discrimination represent a denial of human rights, preventing people
from exercising their full rights (e.g. to housing, adequate health care, education, to
an adequate standard of living).

In our response we focus primarily on issues relating to human rights and

participation. We also comment on the UKs international obligations, the
development of a Single Equalities Act, and the accountability and independence of
the CEHR.

Engaging with key stakeholders rights and participation

Respect for the men and women in receipt of social benefits and social and other
statutory services is neededAgencies and local authorities should be aware of the
power relations at play when they are interacting with vulnerable people and adopt a
code of conduct with guidance on acceptable standards towards the men and women
using their services. Care should be taken at all times to ensure that no-one is being
marginalized by inappropriate attitudes.

Gellideg Foundation Group/Oxfam, (2003), Fifty voices are better than one:
Combating social exclusion and gender stereotyping in Gellideg, in the South Wales
Valleys, www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/resources

Oxfam believes that rights-based approaches are essential in tackling poverty, social
exclusion and discrimination. If implemented effectively they can improve analysis of,
and responses to, poverty, and result in the development of policies and practices
that are relevant to those people affected. They can also enhance the self-esteem
and confidence of people in poverty, and encourage wider understanding of the
difficulties they face. They can help to challenge the negative stereotypes and
prejudice that impact on people in poverty, and strengthen their claims to full
citizenship.3
The White Paper acknowledges the importance of such participation, and highlights
the importance of the voluntary and community sector organisations (especially
those led by and working for individuals who experience discrimination) to the work
of the CEHR. It argues that the CEHR must have an ongoing dialogue with these
organisations to ensure that its work remains grounded in the experiences of
discrimination (para 2.6) and states that the CEHR will need to consider how to
make its consultations timely, accessible and interactive, ensuring that it genuinely
listens to groups and individuals (para 2.11). Laudable though these aspirations are,
the White Paper provides little indication of how they will be met.

The suggestion that the CEHR should consult the voluntary and community sector on
its strategic plan is useful. However, Oxfam believes the CEHR will have to be much
more radical and innovative if it wishes to engage with marginalized men and
women. In practice, community activists often resist involvement in participation
processes on the basis of negative past experiences. They frequently suggest that
their participation was tokenistic and even humiliating and that in the end, they had
no influence on decisions taken. If power relations are to shift so that consultation is
genuinely participatory, it is vital that those involved can see that their intervention
has made a real difference. We believe that the CEHR could usefully engage with
sources of experience and expertise on participatory approaches (Oxfam, or for
example the Department for International Development). It could also pioneer
innovative participatory ways of working with groups facing poverty, social exclusion
and discrimination. We suggest that the CEHR establish fora for regular structured
input into policy and decision-making by people facing poverty, social exclusion and
discrimination at UK, devolved and regional levels.4 We would be happy to share with
you our experience of work with the Department for Work and Pensions in directly
engaging people experiencing poverty in policy making.

Beyond consultation with the voluntary and community sector to identify the priorities
for the CEHR, the White Paper acknowledges the importance of developing
partnership relationships with the voluntary organisations. There is currently a
serious lack of awareness within the sector of the implications of the Human Rights
Act. As the British Institute for Human Rights have found: There is little or no
understanding of the Act as a useful framework for public service providers within
which problems can be solved and risks assessed, and within which the needs of
individuals in the provision of services can be considered 5. Provision of grant-giving
powers for the CEHR to assist local organisations and groups, as the White Paper
recommends, will undoubtedly be helpful. But further action will also be required to
support the voluntary sector. We endorse the proposals set out by the Institute for
Public Policy Research6 for the CEHR to be involved in: information provision about
human rights; development of case study materials, highlighting the application of
human rights principles; dissemination of informal best practice codes; and guidance
on staff training.

More broadly, Oxfam welcomes the recognition in the Prime Ministers Foreword to
the White Paper that: We cannot achieve our vision of high quality public services for
all if those services do not respect individuals rights to dignity, privacy and respect.
In our view, much more needs to be done to translate this positive statement into
effective public policy and service delivery.
Oxfams experience (and that of most of our partners in this field) is that a focus on
strong participatory processes/techniques is a necessary but not sufficient factor to
bring about real change. Our analysis has led us to focus much more clearly on
issues of power relations and power-sharing. As we have found in our work in
international development contexts, it is vital to shift the ideas and beliefs of service
deliverers and decision-makers towards people facing poverty, social exclusion and
discrimination, so that the latter are treated with the same respect that any other
citizen feels entitled to.

As yet, the evidence suggests that public authorities are currently failing to apply
these human rights and equalities principles of dignity and respect to service delivery
in a sufficiently rigorous way. In a recent survey of public bodies by the Audit
Commission, 58 per cent had not adopted a strategy for human rights 7. Rather than
the burden remaining with individual users to seek to claim their rights, the emphasis
should shift so that service deliverers take account of human rights in the design and
implementation of services as a matter of course. Oxfam agrees with the Joint
Committee on Human Rights (para 32, Eleventh report) that a positive duty should be
imposed on public authorities to promote human rights.

In tandem, service deliverers need to pay greater attention to the particular needs of
different groups of service users within each equality strand. Oxfam will soon publish
a guide to gendering service delivery (see box below), which we believe could serve
as a model for future guidance from the CEHR.

Becoming a gender-aware service provider means that you must consider all
aspects of the work that you do, the decisions that you make, and the ways that
these affect men and women. It requires you to dig deep under the surface of your
statistical evidence to ask how and why men and women are enabled to or prevented
from using services.

Richardson, K., (2004), See both sides: A practical guide to gender analysis for
quality service delivery, Oxfam (forthcoming)

The UKs International Obligations

Appendix A of the White Paper summarises legislation relevant to the work of the
Commission. Whilst we accept the centrality of the legislative instruments
highlighted, we would have expected to see a clearer picture of the range of
international and European human rights instruments upon which the Commissions
work may draw. This should include, for instance:
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966);
The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (1979);
The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women (recently ratified by Government)
The International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination (1966); and
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
The White Paper suggests that: Even though these are not binding parts of domestic
law, the UK seeks to comply with them and they should form part of the CEHRs
broader awareness work (para 3.27). This recognition of the importance of these
international instruments is welcome, however we believe the role of the CEHR
should go beyond awareness-raising. We concur with the argument of the Joint
Committee on Human Rights that: Involvement in the reporting processes under the
various international human rights instruments would be a valuable function of any
human rights commission (para 118, Sixth report). Although the Committee itself has
begun to scrutinise the periodic reports of the UK government under these
conventions and covenants, there is an additional role for an independent
Commission in bringing a more systematic, detailed and sustained quality to this
work (para 117, Sixth report). The Commission should also have the ability to
engage in international co-operation in support of human rights.

Towards a Single Equalities Act

Oxfam welcomes Government initiatives such as the introduction of the Human

Rights Act 1998, the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, the
implementation of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, and the implementation
of regulations to prevent employment discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation or religion or belief. We also support the Governments recent pledge to
give public sector bodies a duty to promote equality for women and men, and future
legislation on disability and age discrimination.

Whilst all of these changes entail improvements to the legislative framework, it is

widely believed that the overall structure of equalities legislation is currently flawed. It
has been argued that existing discrimination law is inaccessible and complex, that it
treats people unfairly (by granting more rights to some people than others), and that
the definitions used (e.g. direct and indirect discrimination) are inconsistent
between the different equality strands.

Oxfam therefore agrees with many other NGOs that a new Equality Act should be
established so that the main provisions of equality law can be brought together under
a clear and coherent umbrella. As JUSTICE has argued: the new law would
eliminate inconsistencies and ensure that each type of discrimination receives the
same level of protection. Of course, the key to this is getting the content of any new
Act right. It must entail common, clear standards that employers and the public can
understand, including consistent definitions of key terms and common and effective
remedies 8. A new Equality Act must also ensure a holistic approach to equalities in
which all strands can see gains rather than losses. Oxfams experience of working on
gender equality has led us to conclude that one strand cannot be achieved without
attention to other strands. For example, we cannot address gender without
addressing race alongside it as the discrimination and poverty faced by the poorest
women is exacerbated by the racism faced by women from some black and minority
ethnic groups.

Against this background, Oxfam welcomes the recent announcement by the Deputy
Minister for Women and Equality at the EDF Conference (14 July 2004) that: one
of the first tasks of the CEHR will be to review the legislative framework to ensure
that it meets the needs of a modern Britain, with the aim of bringing forward a Single
Equality Act. Although we would have preferred a Single Equality Act to have been
introduced either at the same time as the Commission for Equality and Human Rights
or more advisedly before setting up the Commission, we are glad that the
Government is committed to taking this step. We believe this proposal should be
enacted as swiftly as possible.

Accountability and Independence

Whilst there will clearly be a sponsoring department within government, it is essential

that the role and work of the CEHR should not be influenced by one department (or
Minister) alone. In Oxfams view, the CEHR should have strong links with, and
influence within, other government departments through a designated Standing Inter-
Ministerial Group.

The White Paper argues that the CEHR will be held to account by Parliament through
the requirement that the Secretary of State will lay its annual report before both
Houses of Parliament. Oxfam believes that the CEHR should have a direct reporting
relationship to a parliamentary committee, preferably the Joint Committee on Human
Rights (with an expanded Equalities remit).

Bearing in mind the need to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the operation
of the CEHR, it is essential that the new body has sufficient resources available to
carry out its role effectively. Overall, it should be better resourced than the combined
budgets of the existing commissions. The budget should be determined by
Parliament rather than the Executive.

Sandy Ruxton
Policy Advisor UK/EU poverty
UK Poverty Programme
Oxfam GB

6 August 2004

1
Fairness for All: Response to the White Paper, Institute for Public Policy Research, July
2004
2
Ruxton, S., Karim, R., (2001), Beyond Civil Rights: Developing Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights in the United Kingdom, Oxfam/JUSTICE, www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/resources
3
See Bennett, F., Roberts M. (2004) From input to influence: Participatory approaches to
research, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, summary and full report on
www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/334.asp
4
For further information, see Commission on Poverty, Participation and Power, (2000), Listen
hear: The right to be heard, Policy Press, Bristol
5
Watson, J., (2002), Something for Everyone, British Institute for Human Rights
6
Fairness for All: Response to the White Paper, Institute for Public Policy Research, July
2004
7
Audit Commission, (2003), Human Rights: Improving Service Delivery
8
Keep it simple: the case for a new Equality Act JUSTICE briefing