Letter from the Chair to the Committee
to the Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP, Home Secretary, dated 11 November
2008
Thank you for giving evidence to the Joint Committee
on Human Rights on 28 October. As I mentioned at the end of the
meeting, there were a number of questions which we did not reach
for which we would like to seek written replies. In addition,
we have some questions arising from your oral evidence. I would
be grateful if you could provide us with answers to the questions
set out below by Monday 1 December.
Counter-terrorism policy: framework for derogation
from the ECHR
We had a lengthy exchange with you about our
proposal that the Government might seek to provide a more detailed
legislative framework for derogating from the ECHR in the event
of a terrorist atrocity which amounted to a threat to the life
of the nation (Qq16-38). We encourage you to respond to our detailed
proposals when you reply to our 30th Report of the current session—a
reply is due in early December. In particular, you should note
my comments in questions 32 and 36. Derogation has not been put
forward as an alternative to the 42 days proposal: it is intended
to deal with the "three 911s" threat previously mentioned
by Tony McNulty MP. We of course recognise that the Human Rights
Act already provides a mechanism for derogation. Our proposal
is intended to provide greater parliamentary and judicial oversight
of any derogation in this area. We look forward to studying your
detailed response and may wish to correspond further on this matter.
Deportations with assurances
We would be grateful if you could inform us
of how many terrorist suspects you have been unable to deport
in recent years because of the prohibition on torture under Article
3 of the ECHR (Qq66-7).
Applications to European Court by Tamils
We discussed the applications made to the European
Court by Tamils seeking to resist deportation from the UK (Qq97-102).
You offered to update the Committee on the latest position in
respect of Tamil applicants to the Court and the invocation of
Rule 39, on interim measures. We would be grateful if your response
to this letter could deal with this matter.
In addition, has the Government been involved
in any further discussions with the Court Registry about the significant
number of Rule 39 requests made by those seeking asylum in the
UK?
Reservations to UN treaties
You offered to write to the Committee to explain
what steps are being taking to implement the Government's welcome
decision to remove its reservation to the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child (Q103).
I would be grateful if you could also set out
the Home Office's stance on reservations to the UN Disability
Convention (Q104). Anne McGuire MP, the then Minister for Disabled
People, stated in a letter to us of 24 September that the Home
Office was considering a reservation to the Convention in respect
of immigration and nationality matters. We are hearing oral evidence
from the current Minister on ratification of the Convention on
18 November and will wish to press him on this issue. It would
be helpful to receive your department's view on this matter, particularly
in view of the withdrawal of the reservation to the Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
It would also be helpful if you could deal in
writing with our question about the reservation in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Q105).
Human trafficking
In his recent letter to the Committee, Alan
Campbell MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the
Home Office, said that he was unable to provide an exact date
for the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Human
Trafficking because "the plans for implementation still lie
before Parliament in the form of an Explanatory Memorandum".
The explanatory memorandum does not indicate when the Government
intends to ratify the Convention. Are you yet in a position to
indicate precisely when you intend to ratify the Convention? If
not, can you explain why you are unable to give a date?
Mr Campbell's letter noted that the Pentameter
2 police operated had found 172 victims, including 12 children.
Of the adults recovered, only 37 "initially accepted supported
accommodation". No information was gathered about most of
the victims because "despite having the support arrangements
in place, a significantly high number of victims were unwilling
to engage". It would seem, therefore, that only a minority
of trafficking victims picked up during Pentameter 2 were accepted
into supported accommodation: most simply disappeared. What lessons
have you drawn from this? Will you review the decision to require
trafficking victims to co-operate with the authorities before
they receive support?
Maria Eagle MP told the Commons on 21 October
that there are just 35 supported accommodation places for trafficking
victims at the moment (c162). How many places do you think there
should be, nationwide, and when will they exist?
| 
