|
OK, how long have you got? To start from basics, the convention has been around for years but it was always very difficult to enforce human rights until the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated convention rights into english law. This then made it possible to plead HR rights in all proceedings, forced ministers to make declarations as to whether new legislation was compatible and required courts /tribunals etc to interpret current law so as to be compatible with teh convention. Where the law was simply not compatible, the higher courts can make a declaration of incompatability, but I'm sure you knew all this already.
The impact to Social Security Law has, I beleive, always been limited. This is because one of the convention rights that has the most potential in this field is the right to quiet enjoyment of possessions which arguably would include wealth/income and therefore benefits. In addition if you can get under the first hurdle of being able to apply any of hte convention rights, then Artical 14 also kicks in which is the prohibition on discrimination and leads on to all sorts of other fun and games. The UK government has, understandably, always resisted the contention that benefits are possessions under the convention because this would restirct the ability to legislate at will in this area with no regard to human rights. A couple of years ago there was a case (can't remember the name off the top of my head) that decided that contributory benefits fell into the definition of possessions. Pensions = contributory benefits = possessions leads to the application of Art 14 and hence it was decided that the difference in pension ages for men and women was discriminatory and in breach of convention rights, hence the current equalisation of pension ages for men and women. See where this is going now?
This latest decision basically says that the distinction between cont/non cont benefits is artificial mainly because all state benefits are funded through taxation. Non contributory benefits now fall into the definition of possessions and so you can now plead convention rights i.r.o Non cont benefits which of course includes DLA, CA, IS, IBJSA, HB, CTB etc.
The practical implications of this? Hard to say, the HRA probably had a less dramatic effect than many had predicted but for example some of the follwoing issues may arise:
Disparity between rates of IS for under 25's - discrimination on the grounds of age?
Unappealable status of recoverablity decisions in WTC/CTC - right to fair trail?
Suspension of benefits pending further enquiries - breach of quiet enjoyment?
LTAHW investigations - right to private and family life?
Right to reside conditions - racial discrimination?
I can't proclaim to be an expert on this and I'm sure others on the this site will be able to come up with more examples. The moral of this is that WR advisers will need to start thinking creatively about pleading HR rights at the early stages of appeals in far more areas than than are applicable now.
|
