2 The state of human rights in the
UK
13. A summary of positive human rights developments
in the UK in 2008-09 and areas for concern can be found in annex
2.
14. As in previous years, the Government has taken
a number of steps to enhance the protection and promotion of human
rights during the year. International conventions on human trafficking
and the rights of disabled people have been ratified, for example,
and longstanding reservations to the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child have been withdrawn. We have welcomed provisions
in a number of Government bills intended to enhance human rights,
including:
- the Child Poverty Bill, which
will establish a strategy for reducing child poverty;
- the Equality Bill, which will simplify and enhance
anti-discrimination legislation;
- the introduction of the new positive duty to
safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the discharge
of immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions, in
the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill;
- provisions in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children
and Learning Bill concerning education for detained young offenders
and the obligation to record the use of force on pupils;
- the explicit reference to human rights in the
NHS constitution; and
- numerous detailed reforms of the coroners system
in the Coroners and Justice Bill;
15. Nevertheless, significant problems remain. Our
biggest concern is that the UK may have been complicit in the
torture of terrorism suspects carried out overseas after the attacks
of 9 September 2001. There are now numerous allegations of complicity
in torture, with a number of features in common. It is alleged
that the UK provided questions to put to suspects tortured or
badly treated in Pakistan and elsewhere; that UK agents interviewed
suspects immediately before or after periods of torture or mistreatment
and cannot have been unaware that suspects were being abused;
and that the UK routinely received information from countries
using torture, turning a blind eye to how the information was
gathered. As we reported in August,[5]
the Government has sidestepped parliamentary scrutiny of these
issues but valuable information has emerged in court proceedings
and the police are currently investigating whether there has been
criminal wrongdoing in at least one case. Serious, sustained
allegations that the UK has received information from countries
which routinely use torture, or has been more actively complicit
in torture carried out by others, puts the UK's international
reputation as an upholder of human rights and the rule of law
on the line.
16. Throughout the current Parliament we have scrutinised
closely the Government's attempts to tackle terrorism within the
framework for human rights protection set by the ECHR. The Government's
task has been far from easy and we have fully supported its aim
of protecting the right to life of people in the UK from terrorist
attack. We have been fiercely critical of proposals which patently
would not be consistent with the ECHR, such as the extension of
the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 42 days, and welcomed
moves to make it easier to prosecute terrorism suspects. We
have consistently argued that the system of control orders, by
which the activities of terrorism suspects who have not been prosecuted
can be regulated and curtailed, is bound to lead to breaches of
the ECHR, particularly because people subject to control orders
are not given the details of the case against them. In a series
of judgments during the session, the courts have reached broadly
similar conclusions, culminating in decisions of the Grand Chamber
of the European Court of Human Rights and the House of Lords,
which have caused the whole system to unravel.[6]
We note also that the control order system is expensive - over
£8 million was spent by the Home Office on legal costs between
April 2006 and October 2009, not including legal aid costs and
the costs incurred by HM Courts Service.[7]
17. We have also continued to question whether the
continued renewal of the power to detain terrorism suspects for
up to 28 days before charge is justified, in view of the lack
of use made of the power and the inadequate procedural safeguards
which accompany it. We expect to report further on control orders
and other aspects of the Government's counter-terrorism policy
before the end of the Parliament.
18. Children's rights have been another source of
concern to us and our predecessors and we published a report in
November following a report by the UN Committee which monitors
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which made
over 100 recommendations.[8]
There have been several positive developments in recent years,
such as the introduction of the Children's Plan in England, the
appointment of Children's Commissioners and the withdrawal of
the UK's reservations to the UNCRC but the UK was recently ranked
24th out of 29 European countries in an assessment of children's
well-being. There is clearly a long way to go before the UK can
be regarded as an exemplar of good practice in respecting children's
rights and, in our view, some of the Government's policies are
taking the UK in the wrong direction. The increasing criminalisation
of children is particularly worrying, given the high level of
child deaths and self-harm in custody and the restricted life
chances likely to be available to children drawn into the criminal
justice system at a young age.
19. A consistent theme of our work since 2005 has
been to emphasise how the Human Rights Act could and should be
used by public bodies as a tool to focus service provision on
the needs of service users.[9]
For this to happen, the Government must take the lead in showing
public bodies how human rights are relevant to their work. Although
there have been some steps in this direction - such as the project
undertaken by the Department of Health and the British Institute
of Human Rights to introduce a human rights approach in Primary
Care Trusts - we have generally been disappointed by the Government's
failure to provide a more positive and consistent lead. This issue
was raised again recently in the report of the EHRC's human rights
inquiry.[10]
20. A related issue is the scope of the Human Rights
Act, on which we have often reported.[11]
Although the Government has legislated to ensure that the protections
offered by the Human Rights Act are available to publicly funded
residents of private sector care homes, it has dragged its feet
in relation to considering this issue in other contexts, such
as the provision of social housing. This is not an abstruse legal
point: human rights belong to everyone and protect the most vulnerable
in particular. In contracting out public sector functions to the
private sector, the human rights protections to which service
users are entitled should not be diminished. The Government
is, of course, to be commended for introducing the Human Rights
Act; but too often subsequently there has been a lack of leadership
to use the Act to its full potential, ensure that public bodies
promote human rights as well as do the minimum necessary to comply
with the legislation, and respond to court judgments which have
narrowed the scope of the Act from what Parliament originally
intended.
21. Human rights are likely to feature in the forthcoming
general election campaign because all three major parties are
committed to changing the UK's human rights landscape by introducing
a new Bill of Rights. We are concerned that human rights will
again become a political football, with serious debate on the
choices facing the UK kept on the touchline in favour of noisy
recitals of the myths and distortions with which we are so familiar.
Politicians on all sides must be clear about what they intend
to do and the practical impact of their proposals. We would oppose
any suggestion that rights encompassed in the Human Rights Act
should no longer be protected or should not be enforced in UK
courts, or that the UK need not fully comply with judgments of
the European Court of Human Rights.
22. Parliament is central to the Human Rights Act.
Ministers must report on the human rights compatibility of every
bill and it is Parliament, not the courts, which must decide how
to deal with legislation which is not compatible with the Act.
We and our predecessors have undertaken the lion's share of Parliament's
scrutiny of the Government's performance on human rights issues,
publishing over 200 reports since the Joint Committee was first
set up in 2001. We were grateful for the compliment recently paid
to us by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury,
who described our work as "consistently excellent".[12]
Whatever decisions are taken on the shape of the human rights
framework in the UK, we are of the view that Parliament, Government
and the people we serve will continue to benefit from a dedicated
human rights committee with an unflinching focus on whether human
rights are being protected and promoted sufficiently in the UK.
5 Twenty-third Report, Allegations of UK Complicity
in torture, HL Paper 152, HC 230 (hereafter Allegations
of Complicity in Torture). Back
6
A and others v UK, Application No. 3455/05 [GC], judgment
of 19 February 2009 and Secretary of State for the Home Department
v AF and others [2009] UKHL 28. Back
7
Letter from David Hanson MP, Minister of State, Home Office, to
Andrew Dismore MP, Chair, JCHR, 27 Nov 09, see written evidence
page 115; and uncorrected oral evidence from David Hanson MP,
1 Dec 09, HC 111-i, Qq75-80. Back
8
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 20 October
2008, CRC/C/GBR/CO/4 and see paragraph 62. Back
9
For example, see Eighteenth Report of session 2006-07, The
Human Rights of Older People in Healthcare, HL Paper 156-I,
HC 378-I, chapter 3. Back
10
Report of the EHRC Human Rights Inquiry, Jun 09, chapter
6. Back
11
For example, Ninth Report of session 2006-07, The Meaning of
Public Authority under the Human Rights Act, HL Paper 77,
HC410. Back
12
2009 Denning Lecture, 23 Nov 09, paragraph 34. Back
|
