Joint Committee on Human Rights
From Democracywiki
Central Lobby
What the Committee does
The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) consists of Members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Committee is charged with considering human rights issues in the UK.
A major aspect of the Joint Committee's work is to scrutinise bills passing through Parliament. The Committee aims to report on the majority of bills before their second reading in the second House. So for a bill which starts in the Commons, the Committee would aim to report in time for the Second Reading debate in the Lords.
Terms of Reference
To consider:
(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments).
Relevant inquiries and publications
Below are a selection of the inquiries and reports published by the Committee that relate to the work of Charter 88 and the New Politics Network. For full details of the Commitee's work please see its website..
Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 42 Days and Public Emergencies
 Our View The government entered into this round of counter-terrorism legislation promising to listen and attempt to build consensus. They have persisted in going ahead, despite cross-party opposition, condemnation from the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner, the Commission of Equality and Human Rights and other human rights groups and only lukewarm support from the security services. This looks more like populist posturing from an increasingly desperate government than a responsible security measure. Regardless of the relative merits of both sides of the debate, to press ahead with something as constitutionally significant as this without cross-party support is willfully irresponsible. We should not forget that these proposals were not in Labour’s 2005 manifesto and the party only got 35% of the popular vote. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith have no moral right to proceed with this. The fact that they are free to do so anyway shows how ineffectual our constitution really is. |
On 5th June 2008 the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) published their Eleventh Report on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 42 Days and Public Emergencies. This was in conjunction with a letter sent to the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith dated 9th June.
Report Summary
The report concluded that there was little evidence to justify the extension to 42 days. It felt that: -
- There was little evidence to back Ministers claims that the terrorist threat is growing.
- There is so far no information in the public domain about the use made of the extended power to detain without charge for up to 28 days since it was last renewed in July 2007.
- Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights already provided for the possibility, in principle, of extending the period of pre-charge detention in a case of genuine public emergency threatening the life of the nation. The Government should have made the case for this rather than seek new legislation.
- Further safeguards were necessary to require the intelligence services to take active steps to ascertain whether information it is acquiring was obtained by torture and to ensure that obligations concerning the disclosure and use of information are kept.
Examination of Safeguards
This report specifically scrutinized the new safeguards that the government had put in place to protect civil liberties. The Committee still felt that they were inadequate to protect individuals against the risk of arbitrary detention: -
1. The trigger: a “grave exceptional terrorist threat”
The use of 42 days would come into use when the Home Secretary was satisfied that there was a “grave exceptional terrorist threat’. The Committee felt that the definition was extremely broad. Essentially, there is no guarantee that the power will only be used in truly exceptional circumstances because every terrorist threat is theoretically grave.
2. Parliamentary Scrutiny
In order to strengthen the role of Parliament, the Bill requires any order requesting the use of 42 days to be bought in front of Parliament within seven days. The questions considered and evidence presented effectively requires Parliament to take on a judicial role, namely the power to determine whether the further detention of an individual suspect is necessary. Consequently, any debate would be heavily restricted to avoid prejudicing future trials. This would make this safeguard virtually meaningless.
3. Parliamentary Review
Any Parliamentary review will almost certainly take place before any trial of the suspects who were the subject of the extension and therefore be severely constrained by the need not to prejudice any future trials.
4. Judicial safeguards for the individual
The Committee felt that the Bill does not do anything to improve the judicial safeguards of the individual. This was because both the suspect and their lawyer can be excluded and information, which is seen by the judge, can be withheld.
5. Judicial review
Whilst the use of the 42 days power is subject to judicial review, there is uncertainty if the legislation will be subordinate or a primary legislation to the Human Rights Act. If it is subordinate legislation, it will presumably be quashed by the European Convention on Human Rights for being in breach of the right to liberty as stated by Article 5 because of the lack of proper judicial safeguards.
The Committee was also unclear on what basis judicial review could take place.
6. Duration
There is nothing within the Bill, which prevents a new order being made which would extend the power beyond 42 days.
7. Notification of chairmen of certain Committees
Whilst the chairs of the Home Affairs Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Intelligence and Security Committee be notified following the order by the Home Secretary, the Disclosure on Privy Council terms prevents the chair from sharing the information with committee members or seeking independent advice.
Human Rights of Adults with Learning Disabilities
The Joint Committee on Human Rights in March 2008 published A Life like Any Other? Human Rights of Adults with Learning Disabilities. The report noted that adults with learning disabilities are particularly vulnerable to abuses of their human rights, and that evidence of abuse and neglect within the healthcare sphere is one indicator of this. It noted that progress on implementing the goals in the government’s 2001 white paper Valuing People had slowed and recommended that the current consultation Valuing People Now should tell public authorities how human rights can be used to ensure better treatment for adults with learning disabilities.
The Committee recommends use of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended) and Human Rights Act 1998 and also promotion of these tools to adults with learning disabilities, particularly by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the government. The report says the government should ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol, immediately.
The report notes that lack of resources is making it difficult to address the social exclusion and poverty disproportionately experiences by adults with learning difficulties, and recommends the creation of a duty on public authorities to promote human rights.
It recommends that the Department of Health should do more to promote the human rights of adults with learning disabilities, and in particular should prevent inappropriate removals of children from parents with learning difficulties.
The Committee found evidence that adults with learning disabilities are concerned about crime, and if convicted themselves were more likely to serve disproportionately long sentences.
More accessible information and advocacy should be available, and on voting in particular the report suggests:
“We recommend that the Electoral Commission and the Ministry of Justice, working with the Office of the National Director for Learning Disabilities and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, produce guidance for Presiding Officers on the test for capacity to vote and how to assess this. The Electoral Commission should work together with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to take steps to make voting more accessible for people with learning disabilities. As part of this process, we recommend that the Government consider the role of the proposed Care Quality Commission, and whether it should monitor how registered providers of care facilitate, or undermine, service users' rights to vote.” para 273. The Committee also seeks legislation making all providers of health and social care public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Inquiry into data protection and human rights
Evidence Session 14 January 2008
Corrected evidence was not available at the time of writing, so this report is from notes of the meeting.
The Committee has an ongoing inquiry into data protection and human rights.
In the course of the inquiry the Committee on 14 January 2008 heard evidence from Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner.
The Committee was interested in data protection generally and the session was also closely concerned with recent publicised major losses of personal data for example by HM Revenue and Customs.
In response to questions, the Information Commissioner reported that:
- he had been lobbying for more resources and more enforcement and sanction powers to enforce data protection law, to ensure the law was taken seriously;
- he felt that since the very high profile data losses, the issue of personal data being held by public and private organisations was being taken much more seriously in government;
- data protection is not only about security but about many different things, including the need to question what data is being held and why, minimising holdings and access to them, being transparent about holdings etc;
- he had concerns about data-sharing and noted that there should not be a presumption that law enforcement would automatically benefit;
- that he had concerns about the ID card scheme and related National Identity Database (see also our wiki page on the Identity Card Act 2006. In particular he emphasized the need for clarity on the primary purpose of the database, and raised particular concerns about the storage of transactional data (recording each time the card was used and why) as this would give the state a huge amount of information about the personal lives of citizens.
Report on Data Protection and Human Rights, March 2008
In March 2008, the JCHR published a report on data protection and human rights.
In summary the report notes that:
- data protection of personal information is a human rights issue and lapses in this may breach the Human Rights Act;
- data protection safeguards should be included in primary legislation – because “Setting out the purposes of data sharing and the limitations of data sharing powers in primary legislation would give a clear message to public sector staff about data protection”;
- “recent lapses in data protection are not unfortunate "one-off" events but are symptomatic of the Government's failure to take safeguards sufficiently seriously. There is insufficient respect in the public sector for the right to respect for personal data”;
- “the Committee has expressed concern before about treatment of personal information as part of the National Identity Register. Recent breaches in data protection do not encourage confidence about the security of data collected for it”;
- the Information Commissioner should have greater resources and powers to enable him to effectively deal with data protection issues (paragraph 39).
All quotes are from the executive summary.
A British Bill of Rights
Inquiry launched
On 22nd May 2007 the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) announced its intention to inquire into:
- whether and why a British Bill of Rights is needed;
- what rights should be contained in such a Bill of Rights;
- what should be the relationship between a British Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act and the UK's other international human rights obligations; and
- what should be the impact of such a Bill of Rights on the relationship between the executive, Parliament and the courts.
Evidence session on 28th January - public involvement in creating a Bill of Rights
The Joint Committee on Human Rights interviewed Professor Chris Sidoti, Chair of the Bill of Rights Forum in Northern Ireland, and Professor Brice Dickson, the former head of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, about the process of creating a bill of rights for Northern Ireland and what lessons could be drawn from it for creating a UK bill of rights.
Dickson emphasised the need to include politically disengaged and hard-to-reach communities in the process, both by inviting initial suggestions for the bill of rights and by asking for public opinion on later, concrete proposals, while Sidoti added that the process of public engagement in the UK should include
“consultation, negotiation, public documents, information, and awareness-raising”,
especially as the concept of a bill of rights will be a new one in British law, but that the process may not take the same form as it did in Northern Ireland.
When committee members asked about specific kinds of public engagement, Dickson mentioned producing a range of documents in different languages, as well as posters and newspaper, magazine, and television advertisements, and added that specific efforts were made to include children and young people (through special events and exhibits of children’s contributions, such as artwork) and BME (Black and minority ethnic) communities.
Sidoti added that the Bill of Rights Forum supported events organised by community and civic organisations. Both men said that the process has been beneficial and sparked important debates, but warned that public consultation needs to be properly funded and must produce a result that genuinely reflects the opinions gathered during the consultation (although complete consensus isn’t necessary or possible), or the public may become tired and cynical about the process.
John Austin MP asked how the Northern Ireland process remained politically independent. Sidoti replied that Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission conducted an independent consultation that wasn’t linked to a particular party or ideology, then set up the Bill of Rights Forum, which consists of representatives of different political parties and interest groups.
Sidoti mentioned several aspects of the process in Northern Ireland that would not be found in the UK, such as the role of identity politics and the links between the bill of rights and the peace process, and Dickson added that the conflict in Northern Ireland created a lot of public enthusiasm for a bill of rights, including support for the inclusion of economic and social rights, while it might be more difficult to generate interest in the UK.
The Earl of Onslow was concerned that a UK bill of rights would invalidate the Northern Ireland bill of rights, or that it would be unfair for citizens in different parts of the UK to have different rights, but Dickson pointed out that Canadian provinces have separate bills of rights that deal with policy areas that have been devolved to the provinces. Sidoti added that, like laws that incorporate international human rights agreements into national law, the Northern Ireland bill of rights could protect the same basic rights guaranteed to all UK citizens, but implement and enforce those protections in a way best suited to Northern Ireland.
The Joint Committee then interviewed Professor Graham Smith of the University of Southampton about possible forms of public engagement in developing a UK bill of rights.
Smith said that opinion polling represented people’s uninformed opinions, shaped by interest groups, and that public engagement must include both consulting and informing the public. He recommended citizens’ assemblies, as used in British Columbia, as a way to engage with difficult-to-reach communities, and suggested random but representative sampling to ensure a mix of ages, genders, races, and social classes. Smith added that civic organisations and interest groups can help clarify different opinions on an issue, and should be allowed to testify to citizens’ assemblies, but also warned that these groups are not representative and their opinions should not replace public consultation. He said that the work and results of citizens’ assemblies must be properly publicised, and pointed out that most citizens of British Columbia didn’t know about the assembly before they voted on its recommendations, but that once they understood what the citizens’ assembly was, they were far more likely to support its proposals.
In response to Lord Morris of Handsworth’s concerns about how to keep the process of public engagement independent of the government, Smith suggested a small, carefully chosen cross-party commission, informed but not led by the Human Rights Commission.
The Earl of Onslow argued that public consultation is unnecessary, because governments are elected with a democratic mandate for their manifestos and are expected to use their own judgement, but Smith replied that support for a party does not necessarily mean support for, or understanding of, every part of their manifesto, and argued that because the bill of rights would limit the powers of politicians, politicians were not the appropriate group to develop it.
Lord Dubs asked whether the results of the public consultation should be put to a referendum. Smith said that there was an argument for a referendum on any constitutional change, but that the public would need to be educated about the complexities of the bill of rights so that they could make an informed decision. He recommended a complex referendum with multiple questions to determine which aspects of the bill voters supported or opposed.
Smith pointed out that it would take time and money to consult with the public and to generate public interest in the debate, but that public dissatisfaction with the political process actually might create support for a bill of rights. He concluded that a public consultation process was done well if it had a clear scope, defined the issues clearly, and was inclusive, and emphasised that the final bill of rights needed to clearly reflect the results of the consultation.
Evidence Session 14 January 2008
The JCHR has an ongoing inquiry into the human rights implications of government proposals announced in a British Bill of Rights, following the 2007 Governance of Britain Green Paper.
In the course of the inquiry the Committee is calling several witnesses, many of whom have submitted written evidence as well as spoken to the Committee. You can find details of the 3 December 2007 evidence session here including contributions from Liberty, the British Institute for Human Rights, Justice, and Professor Francesca Klug among others. Their written submissions are here.
On 14 January, the Committee heard evidence from Roger Jeary, Director of Research, and John Usher, Legal Officer, Unite the Union; Hannah Reed, Senior Employment Rights Officer, Trade Union Congress (TUC); and Carolyne Willow, National Co-ordinator, Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRA).
All witnesses gave a cautious welcome to the discussion on a British Bill of Rights, and also noted that elements of their own positions on it were still under development. However they all offered some views. All strongly emphasised that any Bill of Rights must be in addition to the rights afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act. All three organisations expressed concern at rights being made contingent upon responsibilities.
The TUC and Unite strongly favoured the inclusion of protection of collective rights in any Bill of Rights, with Unite saying further that if such rights were not included they would prefer no Bill of Rights at all, as it would further devalue those rights. Unite argued that British workers were currently at a disadvantage in having less protection for collective rights than other states. The TUC emphasised the importance of trade unions in contributing to democratic processes, and noted that Article 11 of the ECHR protecting freedom of association was too limited in its scope to fully protect the collective rights of trade unions and their members. Both organisations said that the Bill of Rights should apply to all people in the jurisdiction, not only to citizens.
The CRA argued for the incorporation in full of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child as part of the Bill of Rights. They argued that this would increase practical protection for children’s rights in the UK.
Unite noted that there was a need for consultation on a Bill of Rights to be as wide as possible, and that although there was a risk that a discussion on a Bill of Rights might make hostility to human rights in some quarters worse, this was not a reason not to have the discussion.
CRA said that children should be involved in any consultation, as well as a process of public education to make clear that current human rights commitments were a starting point for the Bill. The CRA also emphasised that given current hostility in some areas to the Human Rights Act that now was the time for political leaders to show a strong and public commitment to human rights.
August 2008: "A Bill of Rights for the UK?"
On 10 August 2008 the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report “A Bill of Rights for the UK?” The report contains detailed recommendations concerning the structure and content of a prospective Bill, as well as an outline draft, but stresses that – subject to certain baselines – the detail of the Bill should be determined after a thorough and deliberative national consultation.
General Principles
The Committee is satisfied that there should be a new Bill of Rights, and that such Bills can be created in settled democracies in normal times.
Its most basic recommendation is that any Bill of Rights must be both 'ECHR-plus' and 'HRA-plus.' The Committee is clear that the rights protected should not fall below the threshold set by the ECHR, and it welcomes assurances from the Justice Secretary that the machinery of the Human Rights Act in protecting those rights will not be weakened.
The Committee proposes the title "UK Bill of Rights and Freedoms," firstly to stress that the Bill will cover freedoms from state interference as well as positive rights, and secondly to emphasise that it will apply to everyone within the UK’s jurisdiction, distinct from any concept of "Britishness." The Committee calls on the Government to decouple the Bill of Rights debate from its attempts to reinvigorate ideas of British citizenship, and at the same time rejects arguments that rights should be made contingent on the fulfilment of responsibilities; the Bill must apply universally.
The Bill is conceived as both declaratory and aspirational – stating and making enforceable those rights which currently exist whilst setting out a shared vision of the future to which the country aspires. A Preamble incorporating shared values – such as liberty, democracy, fairness, civic duty, and the rule of law – is proposed, with an interpretive provision requiring the courts to keep those principles in mind as case law develops.
Devolution is not seen as posing any insuperable difficulty to a UK Bill. The Report stresses that there must be a dialogue between central and devolved administrations, and further suggests the possibility of devolved administrations passing their own sub-Bills in order to expand the protection of rights in ways more closely suited to the region.
Finally the Committee argues that the Bill must be pursued with sufficient cross-party consensus to be "a truly constitutional event," but need not command unanimity any more than the Human Rights Act did.
Rights
The Committee proposes several ways in which the current protection of rights might be expanded.
Indigenous rights The Report argues strongly for the inclusion of a right to trial by jury (in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) and a right to administrative justice. It also suggests protecting rights to legal aid, access to court, access to personal and official information, and a general free-standing right to equality, all to be debated in the consultation process.
Non-incorporated international rights The Report suggests that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child could be incorporated, and that the Bill could include a general requirement for the courts to pay due regard to international law in interpreting and applying those rights explicitly protected.
Protection of the vulnerable The Committee is strongly in favour of including specific protection for children, and proposes consultation on whether other groups – such as disabled people, religious/linguistic/ethnic minorities, workers, or victims of crime – should also be accorded specific attention.
Social and economic rights The Committee is satisfied that social and economic rights should be included, and that all major objections can be remedied with careful drafting. It rejects two approaches – directly justiciable rights and unenforceable policy principles – instead recommending a "duty of progressive realisation" under which the Government must take steps within available resources to secure the relevant rights and report to Parliament on its progress. In the first place the Committee recommends that only rights to education, health, housing, and an adequate standard of living are included in the Bill. It envisages periodic reviews of the implemented Bill to judge whether further rights should be included.
Third-generation rights The Committee notes that most so-called 'third-generation rights' are largely incapable of legal expression and therefore inappropriate, but recommends that a right to a healthy and sustainable environment – already partly recognised by the ECtHR – should be expressly included for consultation.
General safeguard The Report also suggests a general provision that nothing in the Bill is intended to dilute or restrict rights that already exist at common law.
Mechanisms
The Committee recommends that the Bill be constructed largely along the lines of the Human Rights Act, with minor amendments aimed at enhancing the role of Parliament in the protection of rights.
- The courts will have no power to strike down legislation for incompatibility.
- Ambiguities in the HRA limiting its application where private bodies perform public functions – raised by the YL case – will be clarified so as to extend the Bill’s coverage.
- The Bill will apply to legislation whenever enacted.
- There will be no free-standing cause of action between private citizens for breach of rights, but the Bill will have an indirect effect on horizontal disputes. The Committee recommends two minor changes to the current obligation on the courts to act in accordance with Convention rights: first that the interpretive obligation will explicitly cover the application of the common law as well as the interpretation of statute, and second that public bodies like the courts will be explicitly required to "take active steps" to promote rights and freedoms.
The Report also suggests some additional Parliamentary and judicial safeguards, including:
- Limits on the potential to derogate, such as through a clause setting out the conditions in which a state of emergency can be declared, a requirement that Parliament confirm the state of emergency before derogations are permitted, and a time limit on such declarations.
- An extension of the current obligation on the Government to provide a ‘statement of compatibility’ at the Second Reading of bills so as to require full reasons.
- A provision requiring a formal Governmental response to a court’s declaration of incompatibility within a certain time limit, perhaps also requiring it to be brought to Parliamentary debate.
- A five-yearly independent review of the Bill.
The Committee rejects the idea of entrenching the Bill of Rights in the constitution, arguing that a HRA-style interpretive obligation is enough. The Report does, however, note the possibility of requiring that any amendment to the Bill be made with the consent of both Houses – i.e. that prospective amendments to the Bill will be excluded from the procedure under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.
Consultation
The Committee recognises that the process leading up to such a Bill of Rights is "potentially a moment of national definition," and that the consultation must be truly deliberative so that the people have a hand in the Bill’s creation. It criticises as premature the Government’s efforts to produce a 'statement of values,' and suggests that this could easily form part of the same consultation.
The Report recommends a process led by an independent body, preferably an existing one with experience in involving people in discussions on constitutional issues.
It suggests a time frame of "no more than six months to a year," in order that the issues can be discussed at length without momentum being lost. It also draws specific attention to the need to involve children and young people in the consultation, and the value of online submissions in broadening the base of consultation.
The Report recommends that certain baseline principles be laid out at the beginning of any consultation, and that the Government set out its own position "to be clear about what is realistically achievable."
"The guiding principles are that any modern UK Bill of Rights must:Draft Bill
- Build on the HRA without weakening its mechanisms in any way
- Supplement the protections in the ECHR
- Be in accordance with universal human rights standards
- Protect the weak and vulnerable against the strong and powerful
- Be aspirational and forward-looking
- Apply to the whole of the UK geographically
- Apply to all people within the UK
- Provide strong legal protection for human rights
- Enhance the role of Parliament in the protection of human rights."
Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights
On 5th December the Joint Committee on Human Rights published its report on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Terrorism Bill and related matters.
The report identified of areas of conflict between the current proposals in the Terrorism Bill and European Convention on Human Rights and made recommendations as to how the legislation should be amended.
Pre-charge detention
The Committee concluded that three months would have been 'clearly disproportionate' and would have risked the inadmissibility at trial of statements obtained following lengthy pre-charge detention. Similar, if less substantial risks remain, in the Committee's view, even in relation to the 28-day maximum period now allowed for in the Bill.
The Committee believes that
- the proportionality case for any increase from the current 14 day limit has not so far been made out on the evidence.
- any increase beyond the current 14 day maximum would at the very least require amendment of the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 which currently enable detention to be extended in the absence of the detainee or his or her legal representative and on the basis of material not available to them.
- There should be nothing less than a full adversarial hearing before a judge when deciding whether further detention is necessary, subject to the usual approach to public interest immunity at criminal trials, including when necessary the use of a special advocate procedure when determining whether a claim to public interest immunity is made out.
- the provision in the Bill for, in effect, a presumptive minimum of 7 day extensions requires deleting. The presumption should be in favour of liberty not detention.
Encouragement and glorification of terrorism
The Committee accepts, on balance, that the case has been made that there is a need for a new, narrowly defined criminal offence of indirect incitement to terrorist acts. However, it believes the new offence, as drafted, to be incompatible with article 10 of the ECHR and proposes:-
- to delete the references to glorification, insert a more tightly drawn definition of terrorism, and insert into the definition of the offence requirements of intent (which could include subjective recklessness instead of the objective recklessness test introduced at Commons report stage) and likelihood.
- The inclusion of a "reasonable excuse" or "public interest" defence to this new offence
In relation to other new offences the Committee believes that
- a "reasonable excuse "or "public interest" defence, should be added to the proposed new offences of dissemination of terrorist publications and training for terrorism.
- extending the grounds of proscription to cover organisations glorifying acts of terrorism is unlikely to be compatible with the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 ECHR or the right to freedom of association in Article 11 ECHR
Deportation with assurances
The Committee believes that states are entitled to seek assurances about torture from other states and such assurances are capable, in principle, of satisfying the State's obligation not to return an individual to a serious risk of torture. They will be treated by the courts as being relevant to the assessment of the risk of a person being subjected to torture in the particular circumstances of the case, along with all relevant evidence about the likelihood of their being respected in practice. The Committee welcomes the Home Secretary's unequivocal acceptance that whether a deportee faces a substantial risk of torture on his return is a matter for the courts.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
The JCHR published its report on the LRRB on 26th April, its the fourth select committee to raise concerns over the Bill.
The Committee draws attention to 2 key areas of concern. Firstly the Human Rights Act itself is not exempted from this Bill (as it is from the Civil Contingencies Act)and so could be amended. Secondly any orders made using the powers in the Bill would, in terms of the Human Rights Act, be primary legislation. This means that the only remedy available for breaches in human rights will be an order of incompatability. The order in question could not be struck down or repealed.
The Committee has raised these issues with the Minister concerned.
