A report that provides an overview of the Committee's work during the 2008-09 parliamentary session and draws attention to improvements to the human rights landscape in the UK which it has commended in reports during the year. It also mentions a number of continuing areas for concern.
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.
In May 2006, in the light of the public controversy arising from recent cases involving the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government announced its intention to conduct reviews by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) and the Home Office into the impact of the Act on the criminal justice system and the Government's ability to protect the public against crime and terrorism. The Committee's report examines the human rights implications of these reviews and surrounding events, as well as reflecting in a broader sense on the work remaining to be done in order to embed a "human rights culture" in this country. The Committee's findings include that, although there is no evidence of a need to amend or repeal the Act, public misunderstanding and unease will continue so long as senior Ministers make unfounded assertions about the negative impact of the Act on the criminal justice system and seek to use it as a scapegoat for administrative failings in their departments. The Committee acknowledges that the DCA review makes a fair and balanced contribution to the debate and supports its proposal for more pro-active work to debunk public myths about the Act and to highlight its positive impact, for example for the rights of the disabled. The report concludes that establishing a culture of respect for human rights cannot be achieved through legal means alone but needs a shift in public perception.
There is an ongoing debate about whether or not there should be a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. The Government is committed to considering the need for a Bill of Rights and other political parties have expressed interest in developing one. The Committee intends its report to contribute to this debate. They have considered evidence from a range of witnesses about whether there is a need for a Bill of Rights including: who the Bill of Rights should cover; what the Bill should include; whether it should incorporate social and economic rights; how a Bill of Rights would fit in with and affect the relationship between Parliament, the executive and the courts; whether the Bill should refer to responsibilities, and how Government should consult the public about a future Bill. In Annex 1 there is an outline of what a draft Bill might look like. It is intended that this practical document demonstrates the potential simplicity of a Bill of Rights. The Committee is of the view that the United Kingdom should adopt a Bill of Rights and Freedoms. There are many groups in society, such as older people and adults with learning disabilities, whose human rights are insufficiently protected. The Committee argues that a UK Bill of Rights and Freedoms is desirable in order to provide necessary protection to all, and to marginalised and vulnerable people in particular. There are some additional rights which they believe should be included in a Bill of Rights and Freedoms: these are discussed in chapters four to six. The Committee recommends for inclusion, amongst others: the right to trial by jury; the right to administrative justice and international human rights (as yet not incorporated into UK law). Also there is a strong case for a Bill of Rights and Freedoms having detailed rights for children, and they recommend that the public should be consulted about including specific rights for other vulnerable groups. In addition, they argue that there is a strong case for including the right to a healthy and sustainable environment. The Committee concludes that rights cannot be contingent on performing duties or responsibilities and recommends that a Bill of Rights and Freedoms should not include directly enforceable duties, however, acknowledging that responsibilities are implicit in human rights instruments. On that basis, and to that end it's suggested that the language of responsibilities could have a role to play in a Bill of Rights and Freedoms, perhaps in the Preamble to the Bill.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; Video Recordings Bill, fourth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written evidence
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; Video Recordings Bill, fourth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written evidence
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill was re-introduced in the House of Commons on 19 November 2009 and the Committee welcomes a number of aspects of the Bill which is implementing some of the commitments made by the Prime Minister in his Governance of Britain statement in July 2007. But the Committee considers there are a number of significant omissions from the Bill including in relation to judicial appointments, parliamentary scrutiny of security and intelligence matters, and the restrictive judicial interpretation of the meaning of public function in the Human Rights Act. They recommend amendments relating to the latter two points. They also look at Protest around Parliament, Ratification of Treaties and Right to a fair hearing and access to a court in the determination of civil rights.The Video Recordings Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 15 December 2009 and is a fast track piece of legislation which repeals and revives the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 in order to enable them to be notified to the European Commission under the Technical Standards Directive and so secure its enforceability. The Committee considers the human rights issues raised by this Bill should be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. However as the 1984 Act, serves as an important child protection purpose, that are currently unenforceable, the Committee accepts the need for fast tracking this legislation and does not propose to further scrutinise this Bill.
Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee about the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq : Report, Together with Formal Minutes, and Oral and Written Evidence
Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee about the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq : Report, Together with Formal Minutes, and Oral and Written Evidence
This report, from the joint House of Lords and House of Commons Committee (Joint Committee on Human Rights, HLP 156/HCP 527, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780104013410), is a follow-up to an earlier report, (HLP 185-I/HCP 701-I, session 2005-06, ISBN 9780104008638). This report focused on the UN Convention Against Torture and its applicability to the UK armed forces. This new report considers discrepancies in the evidence provided to the Committee about the use of prohibited interrogation techniques in Iraq. The Committee's conclusions, were as follows: that conditioning techniques such as hooding and the use of stress positioning were used by some British troops in Iraq, despite such techniques been prohibited in 1972; that the hooding and stress positioning by the First Queen's Lancashire Regiment in 2003, was based on legal advice from Brigade headquarters; that the interpretation of using such techniques may have been too narrow and interpreted as only applying to interrogation in Northern Ireland; that the prohibition of such techniques was not clearly articulated to the troops in Iraq; up until 2005, interrogation personnel were trained in proscribed techniques, demonstrating what they might be subjected to if captured. The Committee is yet to receive an explanation from the Ministry of Defence for the the discrepancies between the evidence given to the Joint Committee in 2004 and 2006 on the use of prohibited conditioning techniques and recommends that the Secretary of State for Defence should confirm a detailed response will be received about the discrepancies, following the public inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa.
The Committee's report responds to and evaluates the Government's review of the UK's international human rights obligations (published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs in July 2004 and available from their website at http: //www dca.gov.uk/hract/ngo/review_2002.htm). The report seeks to bring to the attention of Parliament and the wider public information about the full range of human rights instruments which the Government has decided should continue to bind the UK, as well as those human rights treaties which it has decided the UK should not be bound or in respect of which it maintains reservations or interpretative declarations. Findings include support for the Government's decision to allow for rights of individual petition under the UN Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and concern over the absence of such rights under other UN treaties. The report also notes concerns over reservations made to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to children in armed conflict, immigration control, and detention of children in separate accommodation facilities
In March 2003, the Committee recommended the establishment of an integrated commission to promote all aspects of equality and the protection of human rights (in its 6th report, session 2002-03, HLP 67-I/ HCP 489-I 2002-03, ISBN 0104001623). The Committee's report welcomes the government's decision to establish the "Commission for Equality and Human Rights", and it is hoped that legislation will be passed in time to allow it to begin operating in 2006. The report considers in more detail the functions, powers and structure of the proposed commission and makes recommendations which it is hoped will enable the new body can discharge its role effectively.
The Equality Bill (HCB 72, session 2004-05, ISBN 0215705475), published in March 2005, contains provisions to establish a new single body called the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) to take over the work of the existing equality Commissions (the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality, and the Disability Rights Commission). The CEHR will also assume responsibility for promoting equality and combating unlawful discrimination in relation to sexual orientation, religion and age, as well as providing, for the first time, institutional support for the promotion of human rights in the delivery of public services. The Committee concludes that the Bill represents the most important measure for the advancement of human rights in the UK since the Human Rights Act, and broadly supports its provisions in relation to the CEHR's functions, powers and structure and in enhancing human rights and equality. However, the report highlights some areas of concern, including the need for a general public sector human rights duty, powers in relation to Convention and non-Convention rights, the accountability of the Commission to Parliament and its status and independence from government, and provisions relating to harassment on grounds of religion or belief.
The Committee examine the human rights implications of all government and private bills. This, the seventh progress report of the session, recommends changes to the Mental Health Bill and records the view that the Rating (Empty Properties) Bill raises no human rights issues. The Mental Health Bill was reported upon at an earlier stage (HLP 40/HC 288 2006-07). This report is a response to the Government reply and points arising in debate in the Commons.
A specialist adviser, Francesa Klug of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the LSE, examined the Committee's working practices (her report is reproduced as an appendix). The Committee has decided to adopt, with modification, one of the models suggested. The Committee will continue to examine all bills introduced into Parliament for their human rights implications, but will seek to focus scrutiny on the most significant issues, in order to alert both House of Parliament to them in a timely way. A new sifting procedure, to be carried out by the Legal Adviser, will establish the significance of human rights issues raised by a bill. The Committee's reports will be shorter and more focused. This should achieve a reduction in time spent scrutinising legislation, allowing the Committee to expand other areas of its work: more pre- and post-legislative scrutiny; monitoring declarations of incompatibility made by UK courts and the implementation of Strasbourg judgments against the UK; continuing scrutiny of UK compliance with UN human rights treaties; inquiry work into major unexpected developments and significant human rights issues of national concern; continuation and development of work on the implementation of the Human Rights Act.
The Committee's report draws the attention of both Houses to the human rights implications of the UK Borders Bill (HLB 68, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780108436147) including provisions relating to: new powers for Immigration Officers to detain, search and seize; the proposed biometric registration scheme for non-EEA nationals giving rise to concerns about de facto racial profiling; and the automatic deportation of foreigners convicted of criminal offences. The Committee also comments on correspondence received regarding the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill (HCB 77, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780215708441) and makes recommendations for specific amendments to the Bill in line with its earlier report (HLP 83/HCP 424, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780104010464) on the matter.
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.