Introduction

The Human Rights Act was passed in 1998. The incoming Labour Government had given a commitment in its manifesto that it would enact in full the European Commissions Directives on Human Rights if it came to power and so it did. The problem is that not too much thought was given to the act and despite the fact that only now, two years later, when it comes into force,  we are actually giving it any attention.

The act itself, which comes into force in October 2000, has a long history and unlike the Data Protection Act arrives with a tub load of EEC case law. This will make it more straightforward on the one hand but on the other hand the legislation seems a little vague and this is resulting in overreaction, or in most cases blind panic.

The DSS policy unit on the other hand seems to be completely relaxed about the whole thing and at the time of writing has no intention of issuing guidance. The Benefit Agency has issued to their staff some very good procedures and guidance. However, the impacts on joint working are summed up in a question from a Benefit Agency investigator about Local Authority inspectors: "If I am working on a joint investigation with the Local Authority and I have the correct sign-off but they do nothing will my case be jeopardised"? The response, which was correct, was "yes".

This question speaks volumes. Firstly it shows a continuing lack of understanding and almost disrespect of the way in which Local Authority inspectors work and secondly, the assumption that Local Authorities will operate at a lower or non-existent standard to that of the Benefit Agency.

In reality Local Authorities should be considering the Human Rights Act independently because it effects all aspects of Local Authority work and service delivery. We need to act now not later, and a DSS circular should be taken into consideration but this is an area that we need to take action on directly. We need advice from the LGA & COSLA because of its far-reaching impacts.

So what is the fuss all about?

The Act

In principal the act is not new and certainly not eurocentric. The act is derived from legislation implemented into both German and Japanese law immediately after the Second World War. Most countries, for example USA, Sweden, Australia, Canada and France have implemented very similar acts. Viewers of American television programmes such as NYPD Blue, Homicide: Life on the Streets, Third Watch and Murder One must wonder if it has been worth it. However, the act has not been created to cause the Housing Benefit inspector in Anytown District Council with problems in doing residency checks but is there to protect us all from unfocused and undisciplined intrusions into our private lives.

The purpose of the act is described as follows:

• Everyone has the right to life
• No one should be tortured
• No one should be sold or made to go into slavery or forced labour
• Everyone has the right to liberty and security
• Everyone has the right to a fair trial
• Their should be no punishment without law
• Everyone should have respect for private and family life
• Everyone should be able to have freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Everyone should have freedom of expression
• Everyone should have freedom of assembly and association
• Everyone should have the right to marry
• No one should be discriminated against
• There should be no restrictions on political activity of aliens

On reading the headings none of this seems unreasonable, as it is what we expect for ourselves and our children. So why is it causing so much fervour? Well most of the worry for investigators centres on article eight of the act.

This article is being expanded out under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which at time of writing is currently at committee stage.