Terms of reference - Consultation 

This page presents the terms of reference for the human rights inquiry and the results of our consultation about the terms of reference.

The terms of reference are:

• To assess progress towards the effectiveness and enjoyment of a culture of respect for human rights in Great Britain.
  
• To consider how the current human rights framework* might best be developed and used to realise the vision of a society built on fairness and respect, confident in all aspects of its diversity.

*   The 'human rights framework' will be taken to mean the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and the principles underpinning it. However, the inquiry will not exclude evidence of where international human rights treaties, which the UK has ratified but not incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act, may have been used by organisations or taken into account in developing their approach to public service delivery and a 'human rights' culture.

Consultation

When we launched the Inquiry on 6 March 2008, the first thing we did was to consult  on the terms of reference (TORs) for the inquiry.  'Terms of reference' means the aims and scope of the inquiry.

We particularly asked for responses to the following questions:

1. Are the terms of reference and aims and objectives too broad or too narrow? Please explain your answer.
   
2. Do the terms of reference and aims and objectives explore key issues about the Human Rights Act? Please explain your answer.
   
3. Are there significant issues which have been omitted from the terms of reference and aims and objectives? Please describe these and explain how inclusion of these issues may enhance the inquiry?

Responses received

The consultation was open to all, but we also actively sought the views of 222 organisations.  A total of 118 (53%) responses were received, including from public authorities, individuals, unions, voluntary and advocacy groups. Although the closing date for consultation was 31 March 2008, responses received up to 9 April were taken into account in recognition of the short consultation period.

We would like to thank everyone who took the time to provide us with helpful comments, which enabled us to clarify the terms of reference.

Having considered the responses we decided that the TORs for the inquiry will remain as drafted. However, to address concerns that there was a need to further clarify the scope of the HRI, we have added a definition of the "human rights framework" as follows:

The 'human rights framework' will be taken to mean the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and the principles underpinning it. However, the inquiry will not exclude evidence of where international human rights treaties which the UK has ratified but not incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act may have been used by organisations or taken into account in developing their approach to public service delivery and a 'human rights' culture.

Issues raised and how we will address them

While some issues raised by respondents were specific to their sector or organisation, there were some key points raised in a number of the consultation responses. These points and the way we will address them in carrying out the inquiry are set out below.

The more specific issues raised by respondents will be used to inform the various components of the inquiry, including the research projects, call for evidence and the inquiry panels which will be held later in the year.

The key points from the consultation responses were:

1. The need to clarify the scope of the HRI

The majority of the respondents were happy with the proposed scope of the HRI but a number commented that the TORs were not so much ‘too broad’ as ‘too general’.

In addition, some respondents were unclear whether the HRI would consider the impact of international conventions such as CEDR, CEDAW and ICCPR not yet incorporated into domestic law, or would be limited by how the Human Rights Act as a piece of legislation was working.

How we will address this issue:
While the wording of the TOR will remain as proposed in the consultation, we will address the need for greater clarity about the scope and focus of the HRI by:

• adding a footnote to the published TOR  making it clear that the ‘human rights framework’ will be taken to mean the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and the principles underpinning it. However, the inquiry will not exclude evidence of where international human rights treaties which the UK has ratified but not incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Human Rights Act may have been used by organisations or taken into account in developing their approach to public service delivery and a ‘human rights’ culture.
• publishing the proposed methodology for the HRI on our website, including details of the research projects we propose to carry out.

2. The key issues that the HRI should address

The responses identified two key issues which the HRI should address:

• A number of respondents stressed that the focus should be on the practical implementation of a human rights culture, in particular by public authorities using a human rights approach to deliver better public services
• A large number of the respondents agreed that a key priority for the HRI was to investigate public attitudes towards human rights (as well as towards the HRA specifically) though respondents also recognised the work that has been done in this regard already, e.g. by the Ministry of Justice, and stressed the importance of not simply duplicating that work.

How we will address these issues:

• By asking service users and organisations delivering services to provide evidence of their experiences of the impact of the UK human rights framework on the delivery of public services.
• By carrying out three targeted research projects that address the impact of the current UK human rights framework on the approach of those carrying out public functions
• By considering how best to incorporate into the HRI research polling, or other information gathering components, to address the issue of public attitudes, which will add to rather than duplicate existing work carried out in relation to this issue.

3. Considerations in carrying out the HRI

A number of respondents stressed the need to ensure that marginalised or ‘difficult to reach’ groups would be able to participate in the inquiry. This applies both to geographical isolation (especially, for example, of older people) but also to those facing barriers to participation due to learning disabilities or problems with literacy.

How we will address these issues:

• By ensuring that we assess the way the HRI is carried out, and
• By using advocacy and representative groups to seek evidence from marginalised and difficult to reach groups.