Human Rights Committee continues review of report of United Kingdom

Human Rights Committee
73rd session
18 October 2001
Morning





Government Delegation Further Explains Anti-Terrorism, National
Security Acts; Status of Overseas Territories Reviewed


The Human Rights Committee carried on this morning with its consideration of a fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, asking a 17-member Government delegation for further information on anti-terrorism measures and national security powers and hearing a review of human-rights-related matters in UK overseas territories.

The delegation said the United Kingdom's National Security Act reserved the highest levels of intervention for the most serious crimes, that such interventions were carefully monitored, that a tribunal headed by a judge heard complaints about the exercise of powers under the Act, and that the tribunal had the power to quash any Ministerial decision to enforce the Act.

Under the UK's Terrorism Act 2000, the delegation said, a suspect could only be held for 48 hours before being brought before a judge; that without a judge's authorization of further detention, he had to be released; that the total period of detention, including the first 48 hours, could not exceed seven days; and that a detainee was entitled to consult a solicitor, a right that could only be delayed under precise circumstances by a police officer of at least the rank of Superintendent and for no more than 24 hours.

Henry Steel, Overseas Territories Consultant for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, introducing an annex to the report covering overseas territories, said, among other things, that the Government had invited the Governments of all the territories to initiate processes, involving full public participation, reviewing their present Constitutional arrangements with a view to proposing amendments or changes; that an Overseas Territories Consultative Council had been established; and that legislation on proffering full British citizenship on inhabitants of overseas territories had been introduced into Parliament and was expected to be enacted during the current session of the House of Commons.

The delegation introduced the United Kingdom's report on Wednesday.

The United Kingdom, as one of the 148 States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is required to provide periodic accountings to the 18-member Committee on efforts to implement the Covenant's provisions.

The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. to conclude its review of the report of the United Kingdom and to discuss its methods of work.


Discussion

Responding to questions put by Committee members, the delegation of the United Kingdom said, among other things, that when a request not to grant asylum was made, the Government was required to notify the applicant that he had a right to appeal. Any woman applicant who appeared to be at credible risk of undergoing female genital mutilation upon return to her country would have her case carefully considered on an individual basis; she would likely qualify for exceptional leave or refugee status, depending on the circumstances of the case.

The Government had a clear preference in favour of temporary admission or release of asylum seekers rather than detention, but the power to detain must be retained to preserve the integrity of immigration control. Detention was used sparingly and usually appropriately -- to establish the basis of a person's claim or identity, where there were grounds for believing that a person would not abide by conditions attached to a grant of temporary admission or release; or to effect removal. No one was detained solely because he had made an application for asylum. The concern about over representation of certain nationalities could arise from the situation of a particular secure reception centre where certain asylum seekers whose cases were considered to be straightforward, were held for seven days in order that speedy decisions on their applications could be made. It was not a question of nationality but of the nature of their cases.

The National Security Act reserved the highest levels of intervention for the most serious crimes, the delegation said; such interventions are carefully monitored and a tribunal headed by a judge heard complaints about the exercise of powers under the Act; the tribunal had the power to quash any Ministerial decision to enforce the Act. Steps had been taken to put the Act on statutory footing and to make sure it complied with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Terrorism Act 2000 introduced a new regime for regulating detention of those suspected of terrorism, and had allowed the UK to lift its reservation to article 9.3 of the Covenant, the delegation said. Detention now could only be authorized by a judge, and not by a Minister. A suspect could only be held for 48 hours before being brought before a judge; without a judge's authorization of further detention, he had to be released. The total period of detention, including the first 48 hours, could not exceed seven days. Since the Act had come into force on 19 February 2000, and until 31 March, six people were detained under the Act and no applications for extension were made. From 1 April through 31 June, 52 people were detained, with nine applications for extension, of which eight were granted. A detainee was entitled to consult a solicitor; the right could only be delayed by a police officer of at least the rank of Superintendent, and such a delay could not exceed 24 hours. The acceptable reasons for delay related to credible damage to the investigation or a credible possibility that delay would help to prevent a terrorist act. So-called Diplock Courts, without juries, were used in Northern Ireland to try terrorism suspects on serious charges such as murder.


Representation of minority ethnic groups in public bodies was a concern of the United Kingdom, the delegation noted; continuing efforts were being made through targetted local and national advertising, citizenship efforts through the schools, and special programmes, to encourage voting and other political participation by minority ethnic groups. Only 12 of the more than 600 members of Parliament were recognizably members of minority ethnic groups, and the UK realized that was not enough. It would take some time to reach the targets set for employment of minorities in Government Ministries and in such units as police departments; the time frame for meeting those goals was 10 years, as it was understood that the process would not happen quickly. A Commission for Racial Equality worked to ensure policies and practices that would ensure equal treatment for all.

As for a reported doubling of racial incidents in prison, the Government was not sure the figure actually reflected a doubling of such occurrences, the delegation said -- it was likely that changes in reporting systems and increased attention to the matter had meant that more incidents were brought to official notice. Over the last five years, meanwhile, the number of minority ethnic prison staff had increased by more than 50 per cent. It was true, as noted by the Committee, that Parliament had decided that convicted prisoners were not allowed to vote; once the sentence had been completed, a prisoner could vote again.

HENRY STEEL, Overseas Territories Consultant for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, introducing an annex to the report covering overseas territories, said, among other things, that the Government had invited the Governments of all territories to initiate processes, involving full public participation and reviewing their present Constitutional arrangements with a view to proposing amendments or changes; that an Overseas Territories Consultative Council had been established as predicted in the fifth periodic report; and that promised legislation on proffering full British citizenship on inhabitants of overseas territories had been introduced into Parliament and was shortly to go through the committee stage and a third reading; it was expected to be enacted during the current session of the House of Commons.

The territories were all self-administering over their internal affairs, Mr. Steel said, and the UK was still struggling to determine how to gather timely and accurate information on implementation of the Covenant in overseas territories whose populations ranged from 44 to 60,000. The territorial Governments had been told to ensure human-rights standards were reflected in their legislation, Mr. Steel said, and in a couple of exceptional cases the UK Government had stepped in and legislated such protections itself to guarantee sufficient human-rights protections for the territories' inhabitants.

Responding to questions prepared in writing in advance, Mr. Steel said that in most cases UK law, including its Human Rights Act, did not extend to the territories, although several of the territories had chosen to have UK law apply, although UK law in those cases could be overridden by local law. The UK had not pursed direct implementation of human rights treaties into overseas territories' law but had followed its longstanding policy of securing into the territories' Constitutions a chapter on fundamental rights and freedoms reflecting the standards of the European Convention and the International Covenant. To date, not all the territories had such chapters, but the four that did not had been invited by the UK to adopt them.

The territories had amended themselves or had had amended for them all laws that previously had transgressed the Covenant in relation to the death penalty, judicial corporal punishment, and homosexuality, Mr. Steel said.

Mr. Steel also said that the Bermuda Human Rights Commission was primarily concerned with acts of discrimination, including by public officials, and with ensuring compliance with human-rights standards, among other things by investigating complaints; that the British Virgin Islands was beginning a process to develop proposals related to possible independence, and that a referendum or some other form of public consultation might take place; that the Cayman Islands, in the process of reviewing its Constitution, would consider the inclusion of an enforceable bill of rights; that there were no restrictions in force in the Falkland Islands that applied particularly to Argentine nationals, but that all persons coming to the islands, including British nationals, were subject to immigration controls, except those who had "Falkland Islands status", and that only those with such status had the right to reside permanently on the islands.

The Gibraltar Government had been asked to submit proposals for updating its Constitution, provided that they respected human-rights standards, and select committees had been established to that end by the Gibraltar legislation, he noted, adding that current facilities in Monserrat for detainees were better than immediately after the recent volcano eruption, although long-term prisoners still had to be sent to penitentiaries outside Monserrat to serve their sentences pending completion of a facility that could properly house them; that St. Helena had set up a commission of inquiry to deal with any inadequacies in its Constitution, and had submitted 63 recommendations, many of which had been approved; and that the Complaints Commissioner of Turks and Caicos had much the same mandate as that of the Ombudsman of the United Kingdom, and that none of the three Commissioners to serve since establishment of the office in 1994 had received a complaint he considered worthy of action, although a number of oral complaints had been referred to appropriate Government officials.




* *** *