Proposal for a draft Marriage Act 1949 (Remedial) Order 2006 : Sixteenth report of session 2005-06, report, together with formal minutes and Appendices
This report, from the joint House of Lords and House of Commons Committee (Joint Committee on Human Rights, HLP 156/HCP 527, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780104013410), is a follow-up to an earlier report, (HLP 185-I/HCP 701-I, session 2005-06, ISBN 9780104008638). This report focused on the UN Convention Against Torture and its applicability to the UK armed forces. This new report considers discrepancies in the evidence provided to the Committee about the use of prohibited interrogation techniques in Iraq. The Committee's conclusions, were as follows: that conditioning techniques such as hooding and the use of stress positioning were used by some British troops in Iraq, despite such techniques been prohibited in 1972; that the hooding and stress positioning by the First Queen's Lancashire Regiment in 2003, was based on legal advice from Brigade headquarters; that the interpretation of using such techniques may have been too narrow and interpreted as only applying to interrogation in Northern Ireland; that the prohibition of such techniques was not clearly articulated to the troops in Iraq; up until 2005, interrogation personnel were trained in proscribed techniques, demonstrating what they might be subjected to if captured. The Committee is yet to receive an explanation from the Ministry of Defence for the the discrepancies between the evidence given to the Joint Committee in 2004 and 2006 on the use of prohibited conditioning techniques and recommends that the Secretary of State for Defence should confirm a detailed response will be received about the discrepancies, following the public inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa.
"Constitutes the Terrorism Series' first expansion into non-U.S. legal regimes, and this initial volume deals solely with the UK's approach to security law. Ever since the London bombings of July 7th, 2005, the UK has been faced with the challenge of improving the nation's security while maintaining its proud tradition of civil liberties."--Publisher's website.
Section 6 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in breach of Convention rights. UK courts have adopted a restrictive interpretation of the meaning of public authority, potentially depriving numerous, often vulnerable people, from the human rights protection afforded by the HRA. There has been little evidence of progress since the previous report on this matter (HL 39/HC 382, 7th report session 2003-4, ISBN 9780104004173). Chapter 2 examines developments in case-law since 2004 and the Committee considers the Government's 2005 guidance on contracting for services in the light of the Human Rights Act takes a very negative approach to the difficulties facing the use of contracts to secure better the protection of human rights, lacks accessibility and is difficult to understand, and has little or no influence on the procurement policies of local authorities. In Chapter 3, the Committee considers the case for further action to overcome the problems arising from a narrow interpretation of public authority. It concludes that the practical implications of the current case law are such that some service users are deprived of a right to an effective remedy for any violation of their Convention rights. The Committee has not seen any convincing evidence that providers would leave the public services market if they were subject to the duty to act compatibly with Convention rights, despite the Government's premature and unsupported concerns about market flight. In Chapter 4 the Committee considers steps which could be taken to resolve the problems identified, including use of legislation to clarify the meaning of public authority in section 6 HRA through a separate, supplementary and interpretative statute.
This report examines the Government's intention, as part of its counter-terrorism measures, to increase the pre-charge detention limit from 28 to 42 days. The Committee believes that there is a clear national consensus that the case for further change has not been made by the Government. In the Committee's view a truly consensual approach should lead the Government to accept that it has failed to build the necessary national consensus for this very significant interference with the right to liberty and withdraw the proposal; to proceed with it as detailed by the Home Office calls into question the Government's commitment to a consensual approach and raises questions of compatibility with human rights. The Committee does not accept that the Government has made the case for extending pre-charge detention beyond the current limit of 28 days, for the following reasons: i) it can find no clear evidence of likely need in the near future; ii) alternatives to extension do enough, in combination, to protect the public and are much more proportionate; iii) the proposed parliamentary mechanism would create a serious risk of prejudice to the fair trial of suspects; iv) the existing judicial safeguards for extensions even up to 28 days are inadequate.
Although Parliament is constantly in the news and televised daily, much of its work remains a mystery to outsiders and is sometimes perplexing even to its own members. This book provides a unique insight into the work and daily life of Parliament. It sets out plainly and intelligibly what goes on and why things happen, but it also analyses the pressures within the institution, its strengths and weaknesses, and ways in which it might change. Covering every aspect of the work, membership, and structures of both Houses, this book also reflects the profound changes that have taken place in Parliament over the years.