Conclusions and recommendations
The state of human rights in the UK
1. 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. (Paragraph 15)
2. 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. (Paragraph 16)
3. 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. (Paragraph 20)
4. 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. (Paragraph 21)
5. 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
(Paragraph 22)
Pre-and-Post legislative scrutiny
6. We
draw to the attention of both Houses the Government's undertaking,
in 2006, that a coroner may refuse to suspend an inquest in favour
of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 if he reasonably believes
that the inquiry will not comply with Article 2 of the ECHR (Paragraph
29)
7. We
welcome requests from members of the public to investigate Government
policy or practice which may not comply with the UK's human rights
obligations (although bearing in mind that we cannot investigate
individual cases). Where time allows, we will endeavour to take
up matters within our remit with the Government and to provide
a response to those who raise matters with us explaining the action
we intend to take or the reasons why we have decided not to act.
(Paragraph 31)
8. We
look forward to receiving the fruits of this work: scrutiny of
the Finance Bill is central to the work of Parliament and we require
additional information than that which is normally provided in
order to perform our scrutiny role properly (Paragraph 33)
Timeliness
9. During
the session we reported on nine bills before Report stage in the
first House and one before Second Reading in the second House.
(Paragraph 34)
Recurring themes
10. We
welcome the Government's willingness to amend the Marine and Coastal
Access Bill to meet our concerns about compliance with Article
6 of the ECHR in the light of the Tsfayo judgment. We look to
the Government to build on its approach to dealing with Tsfayo
in this context in future legislation. (Paragraph 37)
Quality of explanatory notes
11. Following
the example set by the Department of the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs with the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and the
Government Equalities Office with the Equality Bill, Ministers
should provide us with a redacted version of the human rights
memorandum circulated within Government when a bill is introduced.
We recommend that Government guidance on the introduction of legislation
should be amended to give effect to this proposal in time for
the first session of the new Parliament. (Paragraph 42)
Committee amendments to Government Bills
12.
We look forward to the House of Commons being given the opportunity
to agree that amendments to bills (and motions) can be tabled
in the name of a select committee, as long as the amendments have
been agreed formally without division at a quorate meeting (or,
in the case of a joint committee, by a quorum of Commons Members).
We also welcome the Procedure Committee's recommendation that
committee amendments should have priority in selection for decision
under programming. (Paragraph 44)
13. We
particularly welcome and endorse that Committee's view that "there
should be a presumption that no major group [of amendments] should
go undebated". (Paragraph 45)
Civil Society input into legislative scrutiny
work
14.
The House of Commons should be given an early opportunity to debate
changes to procedure arising from the report of the Wright Committee,
including a new approach to the allocation of time for Report
stage debates which will enable the Commons to debate legislation
more thoroughly than is often possible at present. (Paragraph
45)
15. We
welcome engagement with members of the public, NGOs and others
about the human rights issues raised in bills. (Paragraph 46)
16. The
publication in draft of the Government's legislative programme
has helped us plan our work and attract more civil society input
and should now be regarded as a routine part of the legislative
cycle. (Paragraph 47)
UN Convention against torture
17. This
formulation of the Government's view, which we had not previously
encountered, does not assuage our concern that the UK may be in
systematic and regular receipt of information obtained by torture
overseas and may, as a result, be "complicit" in torture
as that term is defined in the relevant international standards.
An overseas security agency may well use torture without being
encouraged to do so by the fact that the information thereby obtained
ends up in London. In any event, it is unlikely that the UK Government
would come to know or believe that its receipt of such information
was acting as an encouragement to torture. (Paragraph 60)
| 
