In this report the Committee describes and explains the full range of its work over the course of the 2001-2005 Parliament. The Committee distils from its experience a number of suggestions for consideration by its successor committee and recommendations addressed to the Government, in order to enhance the integration of human rights considerations into the overall policy and legislative process. Chapter 2 explains the background to the Committee's establishment. Chapter 3 covers the legislative scrutiny performed by the Committee. The monitoring of the implementation of the Human Rights Act is the subject of chapter 4, while chapter 5 covers work in relation to institutional support for human rights within the UK. The inquiries into the international treaties to which the UK is a party are dealt with in chapter 6, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The final chapter describes the work undertaken on monitoring action taken by the Government in response to incompatibilities with Convention rights, arising from Strasbourg judgments and declarations of incompatibility by UK courts.
Enhancing Parliament's role in relation to human rights Judgments : Fifteenth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written Evidence
Responses to Committee reports (HLP 183/HCP 1188, session 2003-04, 21st report, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ISBN 0104005440); HLP 8/HCP 106, session 2004-05, 1st report, Protocol no. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights, ISBN 0104005696); HLP 99/HCP 264, session 2004-05, 17th report, Review of International Human Rights Instruments, ISBN 0104006552).
In 2012 around 1,200 unaccompanied migrant children sought asylum in the UK, and around 2,150 unaccompanied migrant children were being cared for by local authorities. The Committee heard evidence of the range of issues that unaccompanied migrant children face during their time in the country. Children who had often faced traumatic journeys, many of whom are fleeing violence or who have been subject to abuse and exploitation, faced intensive interviews on arrival for which there were too rarely interpreting facilities available. There was also evidence of children being placed in inappropriate accommodation facilities without suitably trained staff to provide support, which was a point of particular anxiety where children were victims of trafficking. Concerns were also expressed about the educational services provided, with delays in enrolment due to documentation and too little development as language skills improved. These concerns built upon those expressed in a recent inquiry by Members of both Houses regarding destitution and inadequate support. The Committee concludes that, despite the rights to protection and support owed to those children by the UK under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, immigration concerns are too often given priority. The report calls for a change in emphasis to put the best interests of such children at the heart of the often complex and stressful asylum and immigration processes affecting them.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights examined the implementation of the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the UK. Domestic legislation protects many of the economic, social and cultural rights, with the Covenant itself having little impact in UK domestic law. The Committee believes that there is scope for incorporating further protection of rights in the UK, by enshrining some of the guarantees contained in the Covenant. Further, that for the Covenant rights to be effective, they should be part of a framework for government policy development, and that Government along with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights should develop ways of measuring the progress of these rights. The Committee also recommends, that explanatory notes to Bills, should include discussion of the Bills compatibility with Covenant rights, which is a way of enhancing the scrutiny of proposed Government legislation. Furthermore, the Committee recommends the introduction of an Equality Bill, to address the concerns of discrimination faced by ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities in employment, housing and education.
A constructive relationship between the three arms of government - the executive, legislature and judiciary - is essential for the effective functioning of the constitution and the rule of law. In recent years the character of these relationships has changed. The Committee has thus taken the opportunity of their annual examination of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor as a starting point of an assessment of the impact of the changes. After an introduction there are three main sections that examine: the executive and the judiciary; parliament and the judiciary; judiciary, media and the public.
The Committees report examines parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, focusing on the process for dealing with primary legislation (i.e. the scrutiny of parliamentary bills). This examination is carried out in the light of the Rippon Commission report on the topic (Making the Law produced by the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process) which was published in 1992. Topics discussed include the mechanisms for pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, the growth of legislation, the dissemination of information and ways of gauging public opinion through consultation. Conclusions drawn by the Committee include concern over the growth in the number and complexity of bills being presented to Parliament without adequate expansion in the capacity to deliver effective scrutiny. The report contains a number of proposals designed to help engender a culture shift away from this unsustainable volume of legislation, towards a culture of justification which encourages government to adopt a more disciplined approach to the introduction of bills based on the objective of effectiveness rather than quantity.
Having looked at the Draft Deregulation Bill in some detail and taken evidence from a wide range of witnesses, the Committee does not think it is appropriate for Ministers to be given power to scrap legislation by order on the subjective test that it is 'no longer of practical use'. There is a risk that to give Ministers that power would undermine effective Parliamentary scrutiny. It was also felt unnecessary when the Law Commissions currently have the power to put forward outdated Bills for abolition anyway. The Law Commissions will need to make changes to their working practices in order to produce more frequent and more responsive Statute Law (Repeals) Bills. The Government should work with the Law Commissions to streamline the process for bringing forward these Bills. As for the duty on regulators to have regard to economic growth, whilst this is supported in principle, it is important that it is not used by Government to undermine the independence of regulators in the way it is implemented. It might be helpful if that provision were explicitly included in the Bill
This report from the Joint Committee of Human Rights (HLP 72/HCP 132, ISBN 9780104012468) examines issues surrounding data protection and human rights, particularly in relation to the recent loss of data by government departments. Personal data should be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act (PGA 1998 chp. 29, ISBN 9780105429982), whilst the Human Rights Act (PGA 1998 chp. 42, ISBN 9780105442981) safeguards the right to respect personal information. The Committee has expressed concern about the recent lapses in the protection of data in particular where the sharing of information takes place, and that such sharing needs to be justifiable and appropriate. The Committee fundamentally disagrees with the Government's approach about data protection and does not agree that the two Acts offer sufficient protection, and that further primary legislation is needed to make clear the importance of data protection inside and outside government. The Committee also states that the recent lapses are indicative of a symptomatic failure within government to safeguard personal data and that human rights are far from being a mainstream consideration in Government department's. The Committee states that Government needs to set out proposals to rectify this situation. The Committee supports the extension of the Information Commissioner's powers to defend human rights, but expresses regret that it has taken the loss of personal data affecting 25 million people for the Government to take the issue of personal data more seriously. For a related publication, see (HCP 154, session 2007-08, Protection of private data, ISBN 9780215037923).
Looks at how the principles of human rights can be applied to older people in hospitals and care homes to ensure they are treated with greater dignity and respect. This report covers the leadership of the Department of Health; the implementation of the Human Rights Act by service providers.
The focus of this report is on the voluntary or not-for-profit organisations which are charities, and other organisations with charitable, philanthropic and benevolent purposes, many of which raise funds from the public including campaign groups. The Draft Bill aims to modernize charity law, allowing many campaigning and social justice groups to attain charitable status. In England and Wales 188,739 charities are registered with the Charity Commission, with a total income of £32 billion raised by the major charities. There are 471 charities, 0.29 per cent of those registered, which represent 45 per cent of the total income, two-thirds of charities actually have an income of £10,000 or less. The Joint Committee sets out 54 recommendations and conclusions, among them are: that the Bill should include a definition of religion; that there should be an additional charitable purpose of promoting religion, racial harmony and advancement of culture; that an account should be taken of the loss of assets to a charity, if it loses charitable status; that an independent review should look at the burden of regulation that charities face; that the Charity Commission should inform the charities the reason for any investigation and that compensation and costs can be awarded against the Commission.
This report considers the respective roles of ministers, Parliament and the judiciary in the arrangements proposed specifically in the provisions of parts 2 (detention and questioning of terrorist suspects) and 6 (inquests and inquiries) of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Whilst the Committee does not criticise the process by which the Bill's proposals have been developed they do have concerns relating to the outcomes that have been reached. They look at the basic constitutional questions of: what should the maximum permitted time of pre-charge detention be (given the Bill's proposed increase to 42 days)?; and who should be empowered to authorise such detention? The Committee notes that the European Convention on Human Rights requires that those arrested shall be informed "promptly" of the reasons for their arrest and of any charge against them, and then be brought "promptly" before a judge (article 5 (2) (3)). They advise that if the House approves the time limit set out in the Bill, it will do so in the knowledge that the question of compliance with Convention rights is likely to be heard and ultimately determined by the Courts. They also feel that the decision making scheme set out in the Bill is too elaborate and complex. The Committee continues with examining the Bill's part 6 proposals to permit the Secretary of State to issue certificates requiring an inquest to be hld without a jury and proposed arrangements for appointing and removing "specially appointed coroners". They state that, in their view, Ministers should be required to apply to the court for a non-jury inquest, rather than being empowered to determine without any judicial oversight that there will be such an inquest.
The Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011, an urgent remedial order concerning exceptional counter-terrorism powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion was made by the Home Secretary on 17 March 2011 and came into force on 18 March 2011. The purpose of the Order is to remove the incompatibility of the current statutory powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion (in sections 44 to 46 of the Terrorism Act 2000) with the right to respect the private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts the necessity of introducing a replacement stop and search power and agree with the Government there are compelling reasons for using the remedial order procedure. It does provide for much greater parliamentary scrutiny, but the Committee does recommend that the Government provides more detailed evidence of the sorts of circumstances in which the police have experienced the existence of an operational gap in the absence of a power to stop and search. Without such detailed scrutiny it is difficult for the Committee to reach a view as to the appropriateness of proceeding by urgent remedial order. The Committee also recommends that the Order be replaced with a new Order modifying the provisions and removing the incompatibility identified by the ECHR.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts that the measures in the Immigration Bill serve the legitimate aim of immigration control, but is concerned that some of them may be applied in practice in a way which breaches human rights in particular cases. The Committee is particularly concerned about the risk of the new provisions relating to residential tenancies giving rise in practice to homelessness in the case of people who have no right to remain in the UK but face genuine barriers to leaving. The Committee is also concerned to ensure that these measures do not give rise to an undue risk that migrant children will be exposed to homelessness or separation from family members. The provisions in the Bill on access to residential tenancies may heighten the risk of racial discrimination against prospective tenants, notwithstanding the fact that such discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act. The First Tier Tribunal, not the Secretary of State, should decide whether it is within
The report The Implications For Access To Justice Of The Government's Proposals To Reform Legal Aid (HL100, HC 766) concludes that the government should reconsider its proposals for the reform of legal aid. The government has so far made welcome exemptions to its proposed residence test in the light of responses to its consultation, but the Committee is still not satisfied that the proposed test will not affect vulnerable groups. While accepting that it is legitimate for the government to introduce a residence test for civil legal aid and to restrict the scope of prison law funding, the Committee calls for more and broader exemptions from these proposals to avoid breaches of the fundamental right of effective access to justice in individual cases. The exceptional funding framework may not be working as intended and could therefore leave certain groups unable to access legal aid when human rights law requires it. The proposal to remove cases with
This report welcomes the Bill's potentially human rights enhancing objectives of taking measures to protect the public from crime, at the same time as focusing on rehabilitation and extending positive support to those vulnerable people who receive short-term prison sentences. However, it remains concerned that insufficient information was provided by the Government (i) to demonstrate the compatibility of the provisions of the Bill with relevant international standards other than the ECHR and (ii) to support its assertion that the proposals have been considered fully in line with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. The Committee calls on the Government to publish the information which demonstrates this without delay. The Committee welcomes the Government's assurance that private providers of probation services are obliged to act compatibly with human rights law but recommends that there should be statutory provision in the Bill setting out the providers' duties. The Committee calls on the Government to develop clear guidance on the human rights obligations of private probation providers, and to set out how it will monitor the performance of the contracted providers in this regard
The Royal prerogative derives from the constitutional settlement enshrined in the Bill of Rights 1688, and under such powers the Government can declare war and deploy armed forces to conflicts abroad without the consent of Parliament. However, given that the Government agreed to a parliamentary vote before the Iraq war in 2003, there have subsequently been widespread calls for the convention to be established that the Government should always seek Parliamentary approval before taking any action in future conflicts. The Committee's report examines the alternatives to the use of the Royal prerogative power in the deployment of armed force, whether there should be a more direct role for Parliament and in particular whether Parliamentary approval should be required for any deployment of British forces outside the UK (whether or not into areas of conflict), or if there is a need for different approaches in different situations, for example in honouring commitments under international treaties or in pursuance of UN Security Council resolutions. The Committee concludes that the use of the Royal prerogative is outdated and recommends that a parliamentary convention be established to determine the role Parliament should play in making decisions to deploy force or forces outside the UK to war, intervention in an existing conflict or to environments where there is a risk that the forces will be engaged in conflict.
This report welcomes the enhanced human rights protection which the Protection of Freedoms Bill (HC 189, ISBN 9780215558091) would provide, by proposing to repeal or reform measures which impinge on rights and freedoms. But this protection should be strengthened further in some areas. The Committee welcomes the Government's review of existing powers of entry to private properties, including homes, which has identified around 1200 statutory powers with associated powers of entry. But it is deeply concerned that the proposed breadth of proposals in the Bill could create new risks to individual rights by authorising the Government to extend existing powers of entry. The provisions relating to biometric material create a less intrusive mechanism for the retention of DNA and fingerprints. However, the Bill creates some unjustified risks to the individual right to privacy and the Government should provide further justification or amend the Bill significantly. There should be new safeguards in relation to the processing of children's biometric information. The Committee welcomes the proposal for a surveillance code to regulate the operation of CCTV by public authorities, and the permanent reduction in the maximum period of pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects to 14 days. However, it questions whether the need to provide for a contingency power to extend the period of pre-charge detention in the event of a future emergency is supported by the evidence. The Committee also supports changing the Public Order Act 1986 to remove all reference to public order offences based upon insulting words or behaviour.
The report Joint Committee On The Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners): Report (HL 103, HC 924) discuses the Government's Voting Eligibility (Prisoners): Draft Bill (see below) which was published as a result of a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, that the UK's complete prohibition on convicted prisoners voting was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Joint Committee on the Bill has reached the following conclusions on points of basic principle: in a democracy the vote is a right, not a privilege and should not be removed without good reason; the vote is a presumptive, not an absolute right; the vote is also a power; there is a legitimate expectation that those convicted of the most heinous crimes should be stripped of the power embodied in the right to vote; selecting the custody threshold as the unique indicator of the type of offence that is so serious as to just
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, Fifth Report of Session 2013-14, Report, Together with Formal Minutes and Written Evidence
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, Fifth Report of Session 2013-14, Report, Together with Formal Minutes and Written Evidence
While it accepts that there may be a pressing need to reform non-party campaigning, the report Legislative Scrutiny: Transparency Of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning And Trade Union Administration Bill (HL 61, HC 755) calls on the Government to pause the passage of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill to allow for further scrutiny and for further consultation with the Electoral Commission, the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement and relevant stakeholders. The report recommends that there be more careful consideration of the potential impact on campaigners' rights to free speech and freedom of association. The Committee welcomes the Government improvements made to Part 2 during its passage though the Commons, but suggest that concerns remain. The Joint Committee express concerns regarding: the lack of clarity about the practical effects of the provision in this Part of t
The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts the need for a counter-terrorism power to stop, question and search travellers at ports and airports without reasonable suspicion, but calls for a reasonable suspicion threshold to be introduced for the more intrusive powers such as detention, searching and copying the contents of personal electronic devices like mobile phones and laptops, and taking biometric samples. The Committee welcomes the improvements made to the powers in Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop, question, search and detain at ports, but still considers that a number of significant human rights compatibility concerns remain with those powers even after the changes have been made. The Committee recommends a number of other amendments to the Bill with regards to preventive measures against anti-social behaviour. Whilst cautiously welcoming the Bill's provision to criminalise forced marriage, the Committee believes the new law must be implemented and monitored carefully to ensure that it is not counter-productive for victims. The Committee also recommends additional measures to protect against the potential for prolonged retention of DNA and other personal samples in criminal investigations.
The new system of control orders established by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (2005, c.2, ISBN 0105402052) will extend the role of Special Advocates (lawyers appointed to represent appellants within the closed hearing system before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) who have security clearance to examine material kept secret from the appellant and his/her ordinary lawyers). In light of this, the Committees report examines the operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) over the last eight years and the use of Special Advocates, in order to identify lessons to be learned to ensure the adequacy of procedural safeguards in the future system. Issues considered include: the background to SIAC and the passing of the 2005 Act; the operation of SIAC and its impact on the legal and human rights of appellants; the Special Advocate system as it operated under SIAC and its extension into the High Court. The Committee concludes that there are a number of defects with the Special Advocate system as it operated through SIAC, and a number of improvements can be made to improve its use under the 2005 Act, including the establishment of an Office of the Special Advocates to ensure provision of appropriate expert support and facilities, and that appellants are offered, where practical, a choice of Special Advocate from a security-cleared pool.
This report examines the Government's record in relation to securing the human rights of British citizens and others overseas and its work in promoting human rights in other countries. The report covers rendition, allegations of UK complicity in torture, transfers of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan and the regulation of private military and security companies. It also provides an examination of the international human rights framework and human rights abuses in individual countries of concern including Burma, China, Colombia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Zimbabwe and also in the UK's overseas territories.
The report of the Leader's Group examining the working practices of the House of Lords and the operation of self-regulation was published today (Tuesday 26 April). Recommendations in the report include changes to enable the Lords better to fulfil its core functions of scrutinising government, testing out and reviewing legislation, and debating important issues. The report also suggests ways in which the House of Lords could make the most of its unique strengths and resources, including its Members' skills and experience.
When public trust in the police is tested by complaints of negligence, misconduct and corruption, a strong watchdog is vital to get to the truth: but the IPCC leaves the public frustrated and faithless. The public are bewildered by its continued reliance on the very forces it is investigating. The IPCC investigated just a handful of cases and often arrived at the scene late, when the trail had gone cold. Serious cases involving police corruption or misconduct are left underinvestigated, while the Commission devotes resources to less serious complaints. It is woefully underequipped to supervise the 43 forces of England and Wales, never mind the UKBA, HMRC, NCA and all the private sector agencies involved in policing. It is buried under the weight of poor police investigations and bound by its limited powers. The Committee makes a number of recommendations including: that the Commission should be given a statutory power to require a force to implement its findings and in the most serious cases, the Commission should instigate a "year on review" to ensure that its recommendations have been properly carried out, the Commission should be given a statutory power to require a force to implement its findings and the most serious cases, the Commission should instigate a 'year on review', the Commission's jurisdiction should be extended to cover private sector contractors
This report finds that relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are closer than has ever been the case and that co-operative arrangements in place in the spheres of policing and law enforcement have never run more smoothly or been more effective in countering crime and bringing its perpetrators to justice. The border provides considerable opportunities for the highly experienced and inventive organised criminal gangs, frequently arisen from paramilitary groupings, that have blighted Northern Ireland's life for several decades. Criminals exploit the room opened for them by the border, such as the jurisdictional issues that arise out of having two systems of law and law enforcement operating in an area so criss-crossed with roads, streams and other crossing points. The inquiry has found many good examples of work done by the law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border. The value of institutional contacts between organisations such as the PSNI and An Garda Siochana is inestimable. Chapters in the report cover: policing and co-operation; criminal justice and co-operation; areas for closer co-operation (including scope for legislative change and sex offenders and public safety).
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.