---

Equality Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 83:"Page 19, line 10, at end insert—" ““(2A)   The Commission may, in the course of legal proceedings for judicial review which it institutes (or in which it intervenes), rely on section 7(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) (breach of Convention rights); and for that purpose— (a)   the Commission need not be a victim or potential victim of the unlawful act to which the proceedings relate, (b)   the Commission may act only if there is or would be one or more victims of the unlawful act, (c)   section 7(3) and (4) of that Act shall not apply, and (d)   no award of damages may be made to the Commission (whether or not the exception in section 8(3) of that Act applies); and an expression used in this subsection and in section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 has the same meaning in this subsection as in that section.”” The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 83, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 84, 85, 86 and 102, which are consequential upon it. In Committee, my noble friend Lady Ashton undertook to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we would consider his amendment to Clause 32 to allow the commission to bring human rights judicial reviews in its name. Having had the advantage of discussing the issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I am pleased to move this amendment which expands the powers of the commission in the way that he sought in Committee. The commission already has the power to institute or intervene in legal proceedings relevant to its remit. However, Clause 32(3)(c) expressly provides that the victim test in the Human Rights Act still applies. This test, in Section 7(1) of that Act, provides that proceedings against a public authority for breach of a convention right may be brought only by a person who is—or would be—a victim of the alleged unlawful act. Therefore, the commission at present would not be able to bring human rights judicial reviews. This group of amendments provides the commission with an express power to rely on the convention rights in judicial reviews that it has instituted—or in which it intervenes—and disapplies the victim test to that end. However, paragraph (b) of new subsection (2A) requires that the commission may act only if there is or would be one or more victims of the unlawful act—the effect being that there should still be a victim as before, but that the commission may bring the case. This amendment will therefore not create any new opportunities for litigation under the Human Rights Act, or permit purely hypothetical cases to be brought. The amendment is not about making the commission a major litigating body in respect of human rights. Its role remains essentially promotional. Paragraph (d) of new subsection (2A) provides a further important restriction; that no award of damages may be made to the commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in Committee, granting the commission a limited power such as this allows it to bring strategic cases to clarify important points of law. In many such cases, the facts of the case will be agreed—perhaps as a result of an inquiry—but the legal framework will be in dispute. It is more efficient and more cost effective for the commission to be able to seek a clear declaration on a point of law in such circumstances, instead of requiring a victim to bring a case in their own right and for the commission then to intervene. Having listened to those who have been pressing for this power—including the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and indeed the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I hope that the commission will use it wisely and strategically to contribute to the continued development of the body of human rights jurisprudence produced by our domestic courts under the Human Rights Act. The case was made in Committee for this amendment, therefore, I beg to move.