Recent findings show the public wants politicians to safeguard rights, not weaken them
As the world marks Human Rights Day today (Wednesday 10 December), Amnesty International UK says it is a vital moment to reflect on the fact that, despite political manoeuvres, most people across the country strongly support human rights protections and believe they matter now more than ever.
Recent polling conducted by Savanta for Amnesty International UK found:
• More than 8 in 10 people say human rights protections are as important or more important today than when they were created after the Second World War • 87% believe rights and laws must apply equally to everyone • 78% say rights should be permanent and protected from government interference • Support for the UK remaining in the European Convention on Human Rights is almost twice as high as support for leaving (48% vs 26%)
Across regions and communities, people are clear that human rights should not be up for political grabs.
National tragedies such as Grenfell, the Hillsborough disaster, the infected blood scandal and the Windrush scandal were each identified by the public as key moments that show why Britain needs strong legal protections that can secure truth, justice and accountability.
Tom Morrison, Amnesty International UK’s Human Rights Legal Frameworks Campaign Manager, said: “There is a growing global trend where some attempt to whip up anti-rights sentiment and sow division between people. Human rights exist precisely to stop the powerful from dividing us, and harming the vulnerable.
“Human Rights protections were not designed only for fair weather. They were built for the storms, the moments when authoritarianism, institutional failure or abuses of power put people at risk.
“Thankfully, the UK public instinctively understands this. Seventy-five years on from the creation of the European Convention on Human Rights, people are telling us they want their rights protected permanently. They do not trust politicians to mark their own homework or decide which rights people should or should not have.
“This is a day to celebrate our national pride in human rights and the equality they guarantee. These protections are a hard-won legacy of our grandparents’ generation. We must be responsible custodians, so that future generations inherit them too.”
Local relevance and shared belief
Human Rights Day offers communities everywhere the chance to stand together for fairness and dignity, values that an overwhelming majority of people in the UK say remain essential to modern life.
From the right to a fair trial, to the right to privacy and family life, to the right to be treated with dignity and respect, the findings show that human rights are fundamental to everyday life and to the kind of country people want to live in.
Home Secretary sets out controversial reforms to the UK’s asylum and returns system
HOME SECRETARY SHABANA MAHMOOD’s STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS YESTERDAY:
I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publishes the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.
This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it.
Our world is a more volatile, and more mobile, place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use, and abuse, our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.
The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy. 400,000 have sought asylum here in the last four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived.
To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way, because it is. The pace and scale of change has destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place.
There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger, and ends in hatred.
I have no doubt about who we really are in this country. We are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country, and who must leave.
To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.
[Political content redacted]
My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this [political content redacted] inheritance, and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system.
Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased – reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government.
Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year.
The Border Security Bill is progressing through parliament, and my predecessor struck a historic agreement with the French, which means small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.
These are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are two-fold: firstly, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here.
It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer when compared to so many of our European neighbours.
This generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40 percent come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal number come here legally, via a visitor, work or study visa, and then go on to claim asylum.
They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years, which is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status. In other European countries, things are done differently.
In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims have hit a 40-year low, and now, across Europe, countries are tightening their systems in similar ways.
We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last two and a half years, not five. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five.
I know this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and are willing and able to, we will create a new ‘work and study’ visa route, solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement.
To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to.
Outside of the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee only able to bring family over if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.
While over 50,000 were granted refugee status in the last year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer funded accommodation, and we know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings.
We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative.
We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a “duty” to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal “power” to do so instead. While we will continue to support those who play by the rules, those who do not – be that through criminality or anti-social behaviour – can have their support removed. We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work.
It is right that those who do receive support, pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. This will end the absurdity that we currently experience. Where an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayers’ expense, and the courts judged we could do nothing about it.
These measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. This will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused.
In recent months, we have begun voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again; however, there are still many failed asylum seekers here from Syria, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.
We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups – even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims.
This is true despite an existing returns agreement, and that Albania is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. So, we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.
Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action.
I can announce today that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms we will impose visa penalties on them. And I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.
Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government has already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure there is early legal representation available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered.
Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.
While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights has contributed.
This is particularly true of Article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of this right.
As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country, when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming.
This includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer.
More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.
Article 8 is a qualified right: that means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is “in the public interest”. To narrow Article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and our immigration rules.
Firstly, we will define what, exactly, a family is – narrowing this down to parents and their children.
Secondly, we will define “the public interest” test so the default becomes a removal or refusal, with Article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances.
Thirdly, we will tighten where Article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.
We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the European Convention: the application of Article 3 – the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment.
We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous.
Today, we have criminals we seek to deport, but discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own.
As Article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns. But it is not just international law that binds us.
According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed they were modern-day slaves. This well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal.
So, I will bring forward legislation that tightens the Modern Slavery system to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it.
Taken together Madam Deputy Speaker, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.
We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did, in recent years, when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hong Kongers.
For that reason, as order and control is restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement, to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government.
We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises, across the world, as they happen.
I know the British people do not want to close the doors. But until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger.
It is our job – [political content redacted] – to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is. One that restores order and control. One that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and one that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation and those to come.
I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in. Not the littler England that some would wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity, where others seek to divide.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
Campaigning organisation Asylum Matters said: ‘Today’s asylum reforms put the basic principle of refugee protection under threat. They won’t stop irregular migration.
‘But they would make us a country that has given in to extremists and abandoned vital protection principles set up after the horrors of the Second World War.’
Lifting of market access barriers across areas such as agri-food, helping British business compete on level-playing field and grow exports.
Pragmatic cooperation results in agreements worth £600 million to the UK economy over the next five years and sets course to deliver up to £1 billion.
The UK continues to challenge China on areas of disagreement, with the Chancellor raising concerns over China’s support for Russia’s illegal war, domestic interference and sanctions against British parliamentarians.
Working people and businesses across the UK will feel the benefits of agreements worth £600 million to the British economy, as agreed in the 2025 UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD).
Chancellor Rachel Reeves was hosted by Vice Premier He Lifeng in Beijing today, in support of a stable and balanced UK-China relationship. Both sides agreed to deeper cooperation across areas such as financial services, trade, investment, and the climate to support secure growth, while being frank and open on areas of disagreement.
Overall, this government’s reengagement with China sets us on course to deliver up to £1 billion of value for the UK economy.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said: “The agreements we’ve reached show that pragmatic cooperation between the world’s largest economies can help us boost economic growth for the benefit of working people – a priority of our Plan for Change.
“More widely, today is a platform for respectful and consistent future relations with China. One where we can be frank and open on areas where we disagree, protecting our values and security interests, and finding opportunities for safe trade and investment.
Britain is a leading financial services partner for China. A range of financial services companies with a substantial presence in the market – HSBC, Standard Chartered, Prudential, Schroders, abdrn, Fidelity International and London Stock Exchange Group – accompanied the Chancellor as a business delegation on the trip. The granting of new licences and quota allocations for UK firms such as HSBC, Schroders, abrdn and Aspect Capital to enhance their business in China will further strengthen these ties.
Alongside this are initiatives to improve capital market connectivity – including a commitment to further enhance the UK-China Stock Connect and welcoming the launch of UK-China over-the-counter bond business – as well as initiatives on pensions, countering illicit finance and sustainable finance cooperation.
As part of this, China announced plans to issue an inaugural overseas sovereign green bond – to be used to finance environmentally sustainable projects – in London during 2025. The UK and China will also explore a Wealth Connect programme in recognition of the role asset management has to play in supporting growth. The agreements today in financial services will provide significant value to the UK economy over the next five years.
Both sides have committed to improving existing channels to discuss more sensitive issues, including the need to speak candidly about national and economic security. In her engagement, the Chancellor made clear UK concerns about imbalances in the Chinese economy, and both sides agreed to discuss industrial policy in support of a global level playing field.
The UK and China have agreed to further cooperation including through strengthening the existing UK-China clean energy partnership and committing to a dialogue on international development – to work together in tackling shared global challenges.
The lifting of barriers that restricted export to China across a range of goods and services will support UK exports and innovation, particularly in the agri-food sector where a package headlined by pork, wool, poultry, and pet food stands to boost UK trade with China and support new jobs. China has also agreed to continue to liberalise sectors that restrict foreign investment, such as education and culture, and support a level playing field and fair competition.
The EFD is also part of a wider programme making substantive progress in improving arrangements for UK exports and investors. This is reflected in new agreements on vaccine approvals, fertilizer, whisky labelling, legal services, automotives and accountancy which set course for the EFD to unlock £1 billion of value for the UK economy.
In her meetings with Chinese government counterparts yesterday the Chancellor was clear on the importance of open channels on areas where we disagree. She urged China to cease its support for Russia’s defence industrial base, which is enabling Russia to maintain its illegal war against Ukraine.
In recognition that upholding national security is this government’s first duty, the Chancellor raised this government’s deep concerns over cases involving interference in our democracy and malicious cyber activity emanating from China. Reeves also raised the case of British National Jimmy Lai and raised UK concerns around the respect of protected rights and freedoms in Hong Kong.
She raised human rights, including in Xinjiang, and forced labour. The Chancellor made clear that China’s sanctions against Parliamentarians are completely unwarranted and unacceptable.
Looking ahead, regular dialogues and technical exchanges to progress pragmatic cooperation have been established. This includes further engagement at Ministerial and official level on trade, science and tech, intellectual property, customs, sports and creative industries.
A full list of outcomes from the 2025 UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue can be found here.
“Elected and unelected members have shown themselves to be incapable of following the rule of law“
Charity says it has “lost confidence” that the City of Edinburgh Council will uphold the rule of law and calls on Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Housing Regulator to intervene immediately – the first time the charity has called for special measures to be taken against a local authority
City Council acting unlawfully in use of unlicensed HMO accommodation to house some homeless households
City’s elected and unelected members voted in favour of suspending lifeline housing rights until March 2028, breaching housing laws they are charged with upholding
If the Scottish Government and SHR decide to intervene, it will be the first time that they have exercised the powers afforded to them to protect the housing rights of people experiencing homelessness
Scotland’s leading housing and homelessness charity has today (12 December) called on Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Housing Regulator to intervene against City of Edinburgh Council after the local authority voted in favour of stripping homeless households of their basic rights.
At a meeting of the city’s Housing, Homelessness and Fair Work Committee, councillors voted six to five in favour of proposals to strip people experiencing homelessness of their right to adequate housing through the provision of suitable temporary and permanent housing.
The vote follows confirmed cases of homeless households being placed in unlicensed HMO (Houses in Multiple Occupancy) properties as temporary accommodation – a criminal offence. (2)
In a letter to Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Housing Regulator (3), the charity’s director Alison Watson warned that the Council’s plans are a concerted effort to undermine Scotland’s housing and homelessness rights system and that sanctions must be taken.
She states that: “We cannot stand by and watch efforts to strip people of their housing rights without putting up a fight on behalf of the most disenfranchised people in our communities. Law breaking on this scale cannot be normalised.”
The call comes following the Scottish Government’s reversal of cuts to the affordable homes budget last week after pressure from housing campaigners.
Alison Watson, director of Shelter Scotland said:“It should outrage everyone in Scotland that officers and elected members within a local authority have unilaterally decided to strip people in the capital of a fundamental human right.
“Edinburgh’s homelessness crisis is partly of the Council’s own making, but instead of showing compassion and seeking to help some of the most disenfranchised people in our society, they have chosen instead to punish them in this inhumane way by taking away hard-won rights.
“Shelter Scotland has lost confidence in the leadership of the City of Edinburgh Council to do the right thing and uphold the rule of law. The leadership has systematically failed homeless people for years and is now stripping them of their rights to cover up their own failures.
“I have written to the First Minister John Swinney MSP, urging him to use his powers to call in the council’s homelessness strategy for scrutiny. It is our belief that this will highlight that the current strategy is not only unfit for purpose and cannot guarantee the rights of people at risk of homelessness but is in fact in breach of the law.
“The Scottish Government must do more to fully fund local services through the upcoming budget. However, more money won’t work if the wrong decisions are being taken locally on how to spend it.
“I have also written to the Scottish Housing Regulator as recent assurances provided by the council leadership in their annual statement clearly do not hold up to scrutiny.
“Elected and unelected members have shown themselves to be incapable of following the rule of law. They must reverse the committee’s decision or else immediately step aside.”
Shelter Scotland is calling for the Regulator to consider its powers to use sanctions up to an including the appointment of new management in the housing department within the City of Edinburgh Council, under its powers contained in the Housing (Scotland) 2010 Act.
Under Scottish housing legislation, Scottish Ministers have the powers to call the City of Edinburgh Council’s homelessness strategy in for review, including its provision of temporary accommodation.
Alison Watson added:“Shelter Scotland has never called on the Regulator or Ministers to intervene in this way. We do not do so lightly. However, we will not stand by – and nor should the people of Scotland – and watch people’s rights be eroded without a fight.
“We cannot normalise law breaking on this scale. There must be consequences otherwise there can be no prospect that other rights will be protected, nor of the situation improving for the thousands of people in desperate need of a safe and secure home.”
There are currently around 5,250 households in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh. It is estimated that over a quarter (1,488) of these households are living in properties under an Unsuitable Accommodation Order.
On the eighteenth World Elder Abuse Awareness Day (WEAAD) Hourglass, the only UK-wide charity supporting older victim-survivors is calling for older people’s human rights to be given parity.
WEAAD, a day recognised by the United Nations General Assembly to raise awareness about the abuse and neglect of older people, is this year themed on human rights, emphasising that these rights should be upheld for all individuals, regardless of age. Hourglass, with its unique 24/7 helpline and community response service, is leading the call for parity.
Deputy CEO and Policy Director, Veronica Gray, explains: “The United Nations’ 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1, states that All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
“They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Nowhere in this declaration, nor in its 29 other articles, does it say that human rights expire after a person reaches a certain age.
“However, the UK’s Equality Act 2010 explicitly makes age discrimination illegal in England, Wales, and Scotland, unless there is a justified reason. However, in Northern Ireland, older people still lack legal protection against age discrimination when accessing goods, facilities, and services. Despite these legal frameworks, the rights of older people are often not upheld.”
The charity feels the COVID-19 pandemic starkly further highlighted these issues. They point to evidence that older people were discharged from hospitals into care homes without being tested for coronavirus, leading to rapid virus spread in environments lacking PPE. There is also evidence that “Do Not Resuscitate” notices were issued without the consent of the individuals or their families.
Hourglass points to the October 2020, Amnesty International report “As if expendable: The UK government’s failure to protect older people in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic.” This accused the UK government of directly violating the human rights of older care home residents, including their rights to life, health, and non-discrimination.
Veronica Gray continues: “Unfortunately, the violation of older people’s human rights extends beyond the pandemic. During the legislative process for the Domestic Abuse Act, the abuse of older people was notably absent from discussions.
“The government’s stance that generic abuse services suffice for older victims ignored significant barriers older people face when accessing these services.”
The charity has initiated its own manifesto and campaign to highlight the issue further. For WEAAD 2024, Hourglass has launched OATH – Older Age, Tomorrow’s Hope – urging people to commit to creating a Safer Ageing Society by 2050.
The pledge calls for support from both the public and political leaders in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
In an attempt to address these issues, Hourglass has launched its own manifesto, calling on Westminster, the Welsh Senedd, Holyrood, and Stormont to adopt key policies that lay the foundation for a safer ageing society.
The manifesto – entitled ‘A Safer Ageing Society by 2050’ illustrates some of the key issues facing older victim-survivors and the urgent need for parity.
The narrative explains: Research by Hourglass in 2020 found that over 2.6 million older people were affected by abuse and neglect, yet specialised services for older victims are scarce and often have long waiting lists.
Ageist attitudes remain a significant barrier. For example, economic abuse by family members taking an older person’s inheritance early is not widely recognised as abuse.
Veronica Gray, concludes: “As our population ages, it is imperative that we ensure human rights do not erode with age. The right to life, health, and non-discrimination must be upheld for older individuals.
“We must strive for a society where people can grow old free from abuse and neglect, with their human rights intact. The journey to a Safer Ageing Society by 2050 starts today, and it requires immediate action and commitment from all of us.”
Hourglass, which has been working to support older-victims of abuse and neglect since 1994, has a unique 24/7 helpline, instant messenger and Knowledge Bank service. These services are already under threat due to delayed decision-making on future funding mechanisms.
The charity was recently in the headlines for working to develop and script the story of Yolande Trueman, in BBCs EastEnders. This, along with many other factors has seen the charity’s calls hit over 700 a week and with a likely 50,000 contacts per year.
The charity is urging those keen to support the charity to donate by visiting www.wearehourglass.org.uk/donate or Text SAFER to 70460 to donate £10.
Texts cost £10 plus one standard rate message and you’ll be opting in to hear more about our work and fundraising via telephone and SMS. If you’d like to give £10 but do not wish to receive marketing communications, text SAFERNOINFO to 70460.
Today the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) releases a new report produced with people with learning disabilities, their loved ones and supporters, detailing the need for big changes to the way do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions are made in healthcare.
The report, published alongside England’s Health Ombudsman’s review, spotlights how these decisions are being made without people’s involvement, sometimes fuelled by discriminatory attitudes about disabled people rather than medical factors.
People with learning disabilities call for significant and urgent changes to DNACPR decision making, so that they and their loved ones can make informed decisions, where medical professionals meet their duties to uphold people’s human rights.
A Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation notice (commonly abbreviated to DNACPR) is a notice placed on a patient’s file saying that if their heart or breathing stops, doctors will not try to restart it.
As Rebecca, shares in BIHR’s report:“This is a sensitive and emotional subject that needs to be discussed openly. These honest conversations are important to us, we should always be involved in any conversation about our lives and should have our voices heard. We all have a right to make decisions about ourselves.’
The report was commissioned by England’s Health Ombudsman and sits alongside its review of end-of-life care, which was also released today and calls for improved DNACPR conversations for everyone.
The Ombudsman’s report notes that whilst DNACPR discussions are positive when done correctly, this is not always happening, and in some cases, doctors breached people’s human rights by not even informing them or their family that a DNCAPR notice was made.
Shaunie, a member of user-led advocacy organisation My Life My Choice, who contributed to BIHR’s report, shares his experiences supporting peers, saying that: “this always gets brought up as being wrong on so many different levels because doctors don’t consult with parents.
“Parents are then on the back foot and have to fight. The process is so bad, it really is.”
Similar experiences are echoed by family members and support workers, such as Certitude Care Manager Anthony. Anthony discusses the challenges of making complaints as a service provider and highlights that DNACPR decisions can be left off the NHS’s most widely used database system.
BIHR’s research report, published today, sets out clear recommendations from people with learning disabilities and those who support them, including that there is an urgent need for healthcare professionals, services and systems to provide accessible information on the decision-making process and to make it clear that people can challenge DNACPRs.
Alongside the written report, BIHR has produced a series of videos explaining the research and featuring commentary from participants, together with Easy Read translations, all available on BIHR’s website and YouTube channel.
BIHR’s CEO, Sanchita Hosali, says: “Poor decision-making around the use of DNACPR risks breaching people’s legally protected human rights.
“Whilst the Covid pandemic threw a spotlight onto the discriminatory and disproportionate use of DNACRP decisions for many groups, this is a long-standing human rights risk faced by many people with learning disabilities.
“Today’s report is directly driven by the experiences of people with learning disabilities, their loved ones and supporters. People have shared powerful stories of their experiences, and their fears should they ever need resuscitation.
“We should all stop, listen and take action on the recommendations, to ensure people with learning disabilities have equal respect for their human rights in healthcare, particularly when critical decisions like DNACRP are being made.
“As Lara, who took part in our research says “I just don’t want this to be something that gets shoved on a shelf and forgotten about.””
Multiple sell-outs and thunderous applause were enjoyed by the organisers and performers at this year’s Scottish International Storytelling Festival (13-29 Oct).
The festival’s two week programme of live storytelling, music, art and song enjoyed a 20% increase in ticket sales from its events at the Storytelling Centre in Edinburgh, online and in pubs, gardens and other venues across the city.
Including the Festival’s Go Local programme, which runs until the end of November bringing storytelling events to village halls and parks all across Scotland, from Shetland to Dumfries and Galloway, the festival’s 2023 programme included over 125 events, with 64 taking place in Edinburgh compared to 75 during Scotland’s Year of Stories 2022.
This year’s festival theme was our ‘Right To Be Human’ chosen to mark the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Storytellers both local and international embraced this theme and presented tales of war, gender inequality, censorship; ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious prejudices; and other threats and challenges that impact us daily as we live in the midst of so many humanitarian crises across the world.
Donald Smith, Director, Scottish International Storytelling Festivalsaid: “Right To Be Human, the theme of this year’s Scottish International Storytelling Festival has evoked powerful and eloquent creative responses, and drawn capacity audiences.
“Inspired by the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Festival theme gained tragic resonance as Middle Eastern conflict – added to war in Ukraine, the Yemen and Sudan – produced appalling, large-scale breaches of fundamental rights.
“At the same time the Festival drew strength from growing worldwide advocacy which is advancing human values and experiences through legal, social and cultural frameworks. We were also encouraged by the Scottish Government’s plans to incorporate more recent international conventions on environmental, cultural, children’s and other rights into domestic law in recognition of the 75th Anniversary.
“In a myriad of storytelling performances, eloquently married with music and dance, themed workshops, and podcasts, the Festival programme embraces the highs and lows of humanity’s existential planetary struggles, while keeping the frailty and humour of human life in close focus.
“Artistic inspiration remains vital to confronting the horrors of abuse while invigorating hope and its constructive outcomes.”
Steve Byrne, Director of TRACS, the festival’s parent organisation, said: “The festival is a flagship event for TRACS and we are delighted to see its success in connecting with new audiences this year on such a profound theme of our collective human rights, so often under great challenge in many parts of the world.
“The Festival is a superb advert for the humanity and empathy of our storytellers and traditional artists, upholding TRACS’ mission of celebrating the diversity of local cultural traditions from around the globe.”
For those who couldn’t attend in person, Global Lab – a daily programme of online lively workshops discussing this year’s festival theme ‘Right To Be Human’ led by nationally and internationally renowned guest speakers was available.
Chaired by Festival Director Donald Smith, Global Lab talked about our human rights, our cultural rights, our place in nature, and the empowerment of children, exploring how it is often better to light a candle, than to curse the darkness in the world.
Dates for 2024 are to be announced.
Another Story, the festival’s newpodcast series hosted by Daniel Abercrombie, Associate Director, Scottish International Storytelling Festival, is still available online – listen on spotify https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/another-story
NORTH EDINBURGH COST OF LIVING CAMPAIGN GROUP MEETING
The Cost of Living Campaign Group for North Edinburgh are meeting on Tuesday 20th June, 10.30am until 1pm at Royston Wardieburn Community Centre:
“We are the Cost of Living Campaign Group, we are residents of North Edinburgh concerned with the cost of living. A major issue contributing to the cost of living is the state of housing. Our homes are filled with damp and aren’t well insulated. Reporting repairs to Repair Direct and other services doesn’t seem to solve the issues.
“Structural lack of investment in the existing housing stock is undermining the human rights of residents, impacting on health, wellbeing and our personal finances.
“We invite you to listen to our stories and contribute to our campaign to improve homes across North Edinburgh and demand Repair Direct be made fit for purpose and a comprehensive response to dampness.”
The Home Secretary has hailed the strengthening of the partnership with Rwanda as both countries vow to step up efforts in dealing with global migration challenges.
Under the innovative Migration and Economic Development Partnership, people who make dangerous, unnecessary and illegal journeys to the UK, such as by small boat, will be relocated to Rwanda, where they will be supported to rebuild their lives.
Suella Braverman travelled to Kigali yesterday for official engagements with Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Rwandan Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Dr Vincent Biruta, this weekend (March 18 and 19).
The Home Secretary and Dr Biruta reiterated their desire to deliver the partnership, amid a global migration crisis that has seen 100 million people displaced and people smugglers cashing in on human misery.
They outlined the global leaders’ commitment to working on bold and innovative migration policies to redress the balance between legal and uncontrolled migration. The government of Rwanda reiterated the country’s readiness to receive thousands of individuals, process their claims and house them before they are moved to longer-term accommodation, with necessary support services including health and education provisions.
The Home Secretary and Dr Biruta also signed an update to the memorandum of understanding, expanding the partnership further to all categories of people who pass through safe countries and make illegal and dangerous journeys to the UK.
This will have the added benefit of preparing the UK to deliver on the measures proposed in the Illegal Migration Bill, as it will mean that anyone who comes to the UK illegally – who cannot be returned to their home country – will be in scope to be relocated to Rwanda.
The new bill, which was introduced to Parliament last week, will see people who come to the UK illegally face detention and be returned to their home country, or a safe third country such as Rwanda.
The scheme is uncapped and the government of Rwanda have confirmed they are able to take thousands of people eligible for relocation.
In December, the UK government secured an important victory in the High Court on the legality of the partnership and will continue to defend the policy against ongoing legal challenge, while working with Rwanda to ensure flights can operate as soon as there are no legal barriers.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: “We cannot continue to see people risking their lives crossing the Channel, which is why I am pleased to strengthen our agreement even further with the government of Rwanda so we can address the global migration crisis head on.
“The Migration and Economic Development Partnership is key to breaking the business model of people smugglers while ensuring those who genuinely need protection can be helped to rebuild their lives.
“Rwanda is a progressive, rapidly growing economy at the forefront of innovation – I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing first-hand the rich opportunities this country can provide to relocated people through our partnership.”
Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta said: “If we are to successfully tackle the global migration crisis, we need innovative, urgent action.
“This Partnership addresses the opportunity gap at the heart of the migration crisis, by investing in Rwanda’s capability to continue offering migrants the opportunity to build new lives in a safe, secure place, through accommodation, education, and vocational training.
“For these reasons, we are pleased to once again renew our commitment to our ground-breaking Partnership with the UK, which shares our determination to solve this crisis.”
On the visit, the Home Secretary will spend time meeting refugees, who have been supported by the government of Rwanda to rebuild their lives. She will also see new housing developments, which will be used to relocate people.
She also visited new modern, long-term accommodation that will support those who are relocated to settle in Rwanda.
The Home Secretary also met with investment start-ups and entrepreneurs to discuss the range of business and employment opportunities available to people in Rwanda.
The partnership with Rwanda is just one strand of the work the government is doing to tackle illegal migration. Last week the Prime Minister agreed a package with France which will see a new detention centre established in France as well as the deployment of more French personnel and enhanced technology to patrol beaches.
UK Government plans to impose minimum service levels on public services during strike action are likely to be incompatible with human rights law in their current form, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has found.
In a report published following legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Bill, the Committee finds that reforms that would make it easier to sack striking workers and leave unions at risk of million-pound fines do not appear to be justified and need to be reconsidered. The Committee finds that it would be possible to introduce minimum service levels in some sectors in a way that is more likely to be compliant with human rights law.
While the European Convention on Human Rights does not include a ‘right to strike’, Article 11 which guarantees freedom of association has been interpreted to cover the taking of strike action. This requires that any restrictions on strike action must be “in accordance with the law”, which requires its consequences to be foreseeable to those affected. Changes to the law must also meet a “pressing social need” and be proportionate to the aim being pursued.
The Joint Committee finds that the Government’s Bill risks failing to meet these benchmarks in its current form. Ahead of the Committee Stage in the House of Lords on 9 March, it has called on the Government to reconsider the legislation and ensure it meets the UK’s human rights obligations. The draft report includes five proposed amendments to the Bill intended to rectify key concerns.
The Government brought forward the Strikes Bill in response to growing industrial unrest and strikes in a number of sectors, including transport, health and education. It has argued that legislation is needed to provide greater protection to the lives and livelihoods of those that may be disrupted by industrial action in key public services.
The Bill would allow ministers to set minimum service levels on public and private services subject to strike action. The employer would then be given the power to issue a ’work notice’ to a trade union, identifying who will be required to work and the work needed to meet the minimum service level.
Individual employees who failed to comply with a work notice would lose legal protections against dismissal. Trade unions who failed to take steps to ensure notices were complied with could be required to pay damages of up to £1 million.
The Joint Committee warns that the Government has not made a compelling case that such measures are necessary and finds that the Bill as drafted contains inadequate protection against arbitrary use and is unclear.
Under the European Convention on Human Rights, restrictions on strikes must meet a ‘pressing social need’. However, the Government has not proven that existing strike laws and voluntary minimum service levels are insufficient across all the sectors identified in the Bill.
Claims that strike action in the sectors named in the Bill has caused significant and disproportionate damage to the public and wider economy have not been backed up with sufficient evidence, with the Government providing supporting data for the costs of previous transport strikes only.
Measures that interfere with the right to free association must be proportionate. This is more likely to be achieved if minimum service levels are established though negotiation and disputes resolved through independent arbitration. The Government has previously accepted that such an approach would work, in the Transport Strikes Bill introduced in October. The Bill, which would abandon this in favour of the Secretary of State imposing minimum service levels by regulations, risks failing to meet the requirement of proportionality.
Penalties for employees and unions who don’t meet the Bill’s requirements are high and potentially disproportionate, the Joint Committee finds. It calls on the Government to reconsider whether less severe measures would be more appropriate, particularly where a strike does not involve essential services. Existing penalties, such as loss of pay or suspension would be more appropriate in such cases.
The Bill has insufficient clarity in several key areas, the Joint Committee finds. Trade unions would be required to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure their members comply with a work notice, however the Bill does not provide sufficient detail to ensure they will know when this duty has or has not been met.
The definitions of the services in respect of which minimum service levels could be imposed are currently too vague, meaning that ‘education services’ could include private tutors and ‘transport services’ private taxi drivers.
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “The Strikes Bill will be debated in the House of Lords this Thursday and needs amending to resolve some of the deep flaws it has.
“If this proposed legislation becomes law in its current form, ministers would have the power to set minimum service levels that would leave striking workers at risk of the sack if they are not met, and unions liable to million-pound fines. Yet, the Government has not proven that such draconian measures are needed or that the current framework is inadequate.
“Heavy-handed sanctions are compounded by vague rules that would leave striking workers and unions in confusion as to whether they had been met or not. The sectors included in the Bill are also ill-defined, risking over-reach into areas only tangentially linked to the maintenance of vital public services. This means the Bill, in our view, is likely to be incompatible with human rights law which provides a right to association and with it, protection for strike action.
“The Government needs to think again and come back with legislation that better respects the protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.”
