Appendix 3: Letter from the Chairman of
the Joint Committee on Human Rights
Letter from the Chairman of the Joint Committee
on Human Rights (JCHR) to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee
Work of the JCHR in 2005-06
The Liaison Committee has asked each of the Departmental
Select Committees to produce reports on their activities in 2005-06,
with particular reference to the core objectives and tasks of
those Committees. Following production of those reports, the Liaison
Committee will be producing its own report on the work of select
committees over that period.
In the last Parliament, the JCHR did not produce
such annual reports, largely because it is of a different nature
to departmental committees and the core tasks for those committees
are of variable relevance to us. As a joint committee of both
Houses, with terms of reference "to consider matters relating
to human rights in the UK", we do not have a specific government
department to hold to account in terms of the details of its service
delivery performance or financial accountability. So far as general
policy development is concerned, we are as likely to be engaged
with cross-cutting issues which engage human rights as with the
details of specific policy initiatives.
Despite the limited relevance of the core tasks to
our work, during the last Parliament the previous JCHR Chairman,
Jean Corston, wrote to you each year to provide details of the
work undertaken by the Committee, relating it as appropriate to
those core tasks, and her letters were published as Appendices
to the Liaison Committee's own report. This letter continues in
that tradition, and I hope the information contained in it will
be helpful to the Liaison Committee.
Before turning to describe the work we have done
since the beginning of this Parliament, I should however refer
to the final report produced by the JCHR in the last Parliament.
Entitled The Work of the Committee in the 2001-2005 Parliament,[213]
this comprehensive report set out the background to the initial
establishment of the Committee and then gave an account of the
work which the Committee had undertaken, and the principles which
had guided that work. To some extent, therefore, that report served
the purpose of the annual reports published by departmental select
committees.
I should also explain that from the beginning of
this Parliament the JCHR has not been working precisely in accordance
with the pattern established by the Committee in the last Parliament.
So, although in Session 2005-06 we continued to scrutinise primary
legislation introduced into Parliament for its human rights implications,
we did not make this our first priority, as our predecessor Committee
did. We also undertook a greater volume of other work, one effect
being that we did not scrutinise every Government and private
bill, or any private Members' bills. This shift of emphasis was
intended to enhance the influence and impact of the Committee,
particularly in the House of Commons, by engaging more proactively
in human rights political issues arising in policy proposals or
legislation.
During the course of the year we also undertook a
major exercise of examining our own working practices in order
to agree on how we would seek to fulfil our terms of reference
over the remainder of this Parliament. We engaged an external
specialist adviser, Francesca Klug from the LSE, to undertake
research for us and bring forward options, and agreed our own
report, based on her findings, just before the summer recess.[214]
By and large we have started to operate in accordance with our
decisions from the start of the current Session, particularly
through the introduction of a new legislative scrutiny sifting
system intended to ensure that we focus in our legislative scrutiny
work more selectively on important human rights issues raised
by bills in order to report on them in a more timely fashion for
the benefit of both Houses. I will be able to provide fuller information
about the implementation of our new working practices next year.
Core Tasks
Task 1: To examine policy proposals from the UK
Government and the European Commission in Green Papers, White
Papers, draft Guidance etc, and to inquire further where the Committee
considers it appropriate.
As mentioned above, during Session 2005-06 our scrutiny
work mainly considered the human rights implications of legislation
when it was introduced. However, we reported on the implications
of the Schools White Paper,[215]
work which informed our scrutiny of the Education and Inspections
Bill when it was presented,[216]
and we also examined the Police and Justice Bill in the context
of the Government's wider Respect Action Plan.[217]
In the current Session we intend to expand our pre- and post-legislative
scrutiny work.
We considered Home Office proposals to rebalance
the criminal justice system and reform the Immigration and Nationality
Directorate in the context of the reviews of the implementation
of the Human Rights Act carried out by the DCA and the Home Office
itself (see comments relating to Task 4 below).
From time to time in our scrutiny of legislation
we considered the human rights implications of associated draft
guidance. An example was in relation to the Safeguarding Vulnerable
Groups Bill.[218] We
often comment on the difficulties caused for our scrutiny work
when draft guidance to be made under a bill is not published at
the same time as the bill itself.
Task 2: To identify and examine areas of emerging
policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and make proposals.
A major strand of work for us in Session 2005-06,
which will continue during the current Session and probably throughout
the remainder of this Parliament, was into counter-terrorism policy
and human rights. We visited France, Spain and Canada in connection
with this inquiry and produced three reports on the subject. The
first two focused on legislation, the Terrorism Bill[219]
and the order renewing the control orders regime put in place
by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.[220]
The third report in the series attempted to deal with the subject
more pro-actively, examining ways in which the Government's counter-terrorism
strategy could be developed to ensure that it is fully compatible
with human rights obligations and principles.[221]
The report made a number of recommendations designed to facilitate
prosecution of terrorist suspects and to provide alternatives
to lengthy pre-charge detention of such suspects.
The previous Committee regularly inquired into the
implementation of individual UN human rights treaties in the UK,
on the basis of the "Concluding Observations" issued
by the UN treaty bodies following their examination of the Government
on its periodic reports. In Session 2005-06 we conducted a similar
inquiry into the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture
(UNCAT) in the UK. In this inquiry we also considered the human
rights aspects of the topical issue of extraordinary renditions.
We conducted a major "thematic" inquiry
into human trafficking, examining the consistency of Government
policy in relation to international human rights norms, particularly
those governing the treatment of victims of trafficking. In the
course of this inquiry we visited Italy to see how trafficking
victims were supported there. Amongst other things, our report[222]
recommended that the Government should sign and ratify the Council
of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings.
At the end of the Session we began a thematic inquiry
into the treatment of asylum seekers and we also held a one-off
evidence session with the UK's four Children's Commissioners on
current matters of concern relating to children's rights.
Task 3: To conduct scrutiny of any published draft
bill within the Committee's responsibilities.
In theory all draft bills fall within our area of
responsibility in relation to their human rights implications.
During Session 2005-06 we did not report substantively on any
draft bills, but our Legal Adviser liaised at official level as
appropriate with committees conducting pre-legislative scrutiny
of them.
Task 4: To examine specific output from the department
expressed in documents or other decisions.
We have no single department to monitor, though much
of our work involves the examination of documents or proposals
across Government.
Overall human rights policy responsibility lies with
the Department of Constitutional Affairs, and we took oral evidence
in January from the then Human Rights Minister, Harriet Harman,
on the Government's human rights policy.
Following debate in the spring over whether the Human
Rights Act was prejudicing the protection of public safety, both
the DCA and the Home Office conducted reviews of the implementation
of the Act. On publication of the DCA's review we took evidence
from the Lord Chancellor, alongside Baroness Scotland representing
the Home Office, and published a report on those reviews, incorporating
our views on associated Home Office policy proposals.[223]
Task 5: To examine the expenditure plans and out-turn
of the department, its agencies and principal NDPBs.
This task is largely inapplicable to us, but see
Task 7 below.
Task 6: To examine the department's Public Service
Agreements, the associated targets and the statistical measurements
employed, and report if appropriate.
This task is not relevant to the JCHR.
Task 7: To monitor the work of the department's
Executive Agencies, NDPBs, regulators and other associated public
bodies.
In general terms, this task is not relevant to the
JCHR. There is only one NDPB which at present could be considered
to fall directly within our remit. That is the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission, on which the previous Committee reported
in 2003. We have continued to follow the debate over the review
of the Commission's powers, visiting the Commission in Belfast
in early November 2006 to discuss this and other matters. We will
be considering the matter further in the context of our examination
of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill during this
Session.
We continued the work of the previous Committee on
the proposals to establish a Commission for Equality and Human
Rights, principally in the context of our scrutiny of the Equality
Bill.[224] We have
considered the prospective work of the Commission informally on
several occasions, including in the course of Awaydays we held
in the autumn of 2005 and 2006 with academics, lawyers and human
rights practitioners.
We are grateful to the Liaison Committee for facilitating
discussion of a change to our terms of reference to include "equalities"
alongside "human rights" to make clear that, while the
CEHR when established will be formally accountable to the Communities
and Local Government Select Committee, we will be able to consider
the full range of the Commission's activities and the extent to
which the Commission is successful in integrating human rights
principles across its work.
Task 8: To scrutinise major appointments made
by the department.
Not relevant to the JCHR. It may become so in the
context of the proposed Commission for Equality and Human Rights.
Task 9: To examine the implementation of legislation
and major policy initiatives.
We maintain a constant interest in the implementation
of the Human Rights Act 1998 itself, including the development
of judicial case-law, as well as the effectiveness of administrative
and policy measures taken within the Government and other public
authorities to promote human rights values and to establish a
human rights culture in the UK (see Task 4 above for our report
on the DCA and Home Office reviews of the implementation of the
Act).
In Session 2005-06 we did not as a matter of course
generally examine the implementation of other legislation,
whether through delegated legislation, guidance, codes of practice
or other administrative arrangements. We have, however, followed
up in reports on human rights points we have raised in relation
to bills as they were passing through Parliament, particularly
in relation to counter-terrorism legislation. We also intend to
undertake increased "post-legislative scrutiny" in the
future.
Task 10: To produce Reports which are suitable
for debate in the House, including Westminster Hall, or debating
committees.
A number of our reports have been tagged to debates
in the House of Commons on various stages of legislation. Our
reports continue to be used and cited in legislative debates in
both Houses, albeit more often in the Lords than in the Commons.
Our report on counter-terrorism policy and human
rights: prosecution and pre-charge detention,[225]
was debated in Westminster Hall on 7 December 2006 together with
the Home Affairs Committee's report on terrorism detention powers.
Other work
Having dealt with the core tasks, I now turn to the
work of the JCHR which falls largely outside these tasks.
Legislative scrutiny work
In Session 2005-06 we scrutinised 46 Government bills,
commenting substantively on 27 because they raised significant
human rights issues, and 5 private bills, commenting substantively
on one of them. Our reports dealt principally with the compatibility
of bills with Convention Rights as defined by the Human Rights
Act 1998 and with other human rights instruments. We published
15 legislative scrutiny progress reports commenting on more than
one bill.[226] In addition
we published two reports on individual bills of particular significance,[227]
and, as mentioned above, we considered the Terrorism Bill in our
Third Report of the Session as part of our counter-terrorism and
human rights inquiry.
Remedial orders
We are required by our governing Standing Order to
consider and report on remedial orders laid under the Human Rights
Act. In Session 2005-06 a proposal for a draft Marriage Act 1949
(Remedial) Order was laid, followed by a draft Order itself. We
duly reported on the proposal[228]
and then on the draft Order, recommending it be approved.[229]
Monitoring of Strasbourg judgments
At the start of this Parliament we decided that we
would publish regular progress reports arising from our monitoring
of judgments made by the Strasbourg court against the UK, looking
in particular at the speed and effectiveness with which the Government
introduced legislative or other measures to remedy breaches of
the Convention as identified by the Court. We have published one
such report, which looks at a number of outstanding cases and
at general issues arising from them. The Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly's rapporteur on the execution of Strasbourg judgments
has hailed this report as a model for other parliamentary bodies
to follow.
Relations with the Government
I conclude with some remarks about the cooperation
we receive from the Government and its impact on our work.
As mentioned above, our closest relationship is with
the DCA and we have no significant problems with their willingness
to co-operate with us and to keep us informed about their human
rights work.
Our legislative scrutiny and other work impinges
on nearly all government departments, some, such as the Home Office,
more than others. In general we are impressed by the full and
reasoned way in which Ministers from all Departments respond to
our requests for written and oral evidence. In the case of our
legislative scrutiny work, those requests can often be detailed
and technical, and require swift responses if we are to be able
to take the Government's views into account in the reports which
we seek to make to both Houses as early as possible in the passage
of bills. Normally our deadlines are met, and we are grateful
for that. Given that our remit extends across the whole of Government,
on occasions we would find it helpful if Departments were more
pro-active in sending us draft guidance or codes of practice of
particular relevance to human rights, particularly when we have
flagged up the significance of such documents in reports on the
relevant bills.
We have one major caveat to express. For some time
we have been pressing the Government, through the DCA, to improve
the quality of information which they supply on the human rights
implications of bills at the time they are presented. We have
asked for a separate Human Rights Memorandum to be provided on
presentation or, failing that, for a significant improvement in
the treatment of human rights matters in Explanatory Notes, consistently
across all bills and departments. This would be of great assistance
to us in our legislative scrutiny work, enabling us to report
in a more timely fashion on bills to both Houses. Although the
Government has so far not been willing to provide a Human Rights
memorandum, we understand that from the start of this Session
the DCA has been making a major effort to ensure that all Departments
deal adequately with human rights matters in the Explanatory Notes
they produce. We will be keeping a close eye on this and at some
stage we will assess whether these improvements meets our requirements.
We do not expect Government responses as a matter
of course to our legislative scrutiny reports, though it is of
course open to the relevant departments to send us views. In relation
to our other reports, we do expect responses, in exactly the same
way as other select committees do. I should record here that despite
several reminders to the Home Office and latterly, following the
transfer of responsibility for race equality policy, to the DCLG,
we have still not received a response to the previous Committee's
report from Session 2004-05 on the Convention on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination.
Mr Andrew Dismore MP
January 2007
213 Nineteenth Report of Session 2004-05, HC 552 Back
214
Twenty-third Report of Session 2005-06, The Committee's Future
Working Practices, HC 1575 Back
215
Ninth Report of Session 2005-06, Schools White Paper, HC
887 Back
216
Eighteenth Report of Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny:
Ninth Progress Report, HC 1098 Back
217
Twentieth Report of Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny:
Tenth Progress Report, HC 1138 Back
218
Twenty-fifth Report of Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny:
Thirteenth Progress Report, HC 1577 Back
219
Third Report of Session 2005-06, Counter-terrorism policy and
human rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters, HC 561-I
and -II Back
220
Twelfth Report of Session 2005-06, Counter-terrorism policy
and human rights: Draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance
in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2006, HC 915 Back
221
Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2005-06, Counter-terrorism
policy and human rights: prosecution and pre-charge detention Back
222
Twenty-sixth Report of Session 2005-06, Human Trafficking,
HC 1127-I and -II Back
223
Thirty-second Report of Session 2005-06, The Human Rights Act:
the DCA and Home Office Reviews, HC 1716 Back
224
Fourth Report of Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny: Equality
Bill, HC 766 Back
225
Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2005-06, op.cit. Back
226
First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh, Fourteenth, Fifteenth,
Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-first, Twenty-second,
Twenty-fifth, Twenty-eighth and Thirty-first Reports of Session
2005-06. Some bills were reported on in more than one progress
report, and a full list of where each public bill was reported
on is contained in the Thirty-first Report, Legislative Scrutiny:
Final Progress Report, HC 1715, p 23 Back
227
Fourth Report of Session 2005-06, Legislative Scrutiny: Equality
Bill, HC 766, and Twenty-seventh Report of Session 2005-06,
Legislative Scrutiny: Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Bill, HC 1625 Back
228
Sixteenth Report of Session 2005-06, Proposal for a Draft Marriage
Act 1949 (Remedial) Order 2006, HC 1022 Back
229
Twenty-ninth Report of Session 2003-04, Draft Marriage Act
1949 (Remedial) Order 2006, HC 1627 Back
| 
