Westminster’s Committee of Privileges has published written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, ahead of hearing his oral evidence today (Wednesday).
The Committee initially received the written evidence from Mr Johnson on Monday afternoon at 2.32pm in unredacted form.
The evidence submitted had a number of errors and typos, and, a final corrected version was not submitted to the Privileges Committee until 8.02 am yesterday morning.
Redactions have been made in the published version to protect the identity of some witnesses, in consultation with Mr Johnson, particularly junior-ranking civil servants.
Mr Johnson’s written submission contains no new documentary evidence.
The Committee has set out its own views of its processes in reports published in July and September 2022. The Committee will consider carefully the further arguments made by Mr Johnson and respond to them in its final report.
Throughout this inquiry the Committee has received and followed the advice of its legal adviser, former Senior President of Tribunals and Lord Justice of Appeal Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder, as well as the impartial Clerks of the House. The Committee remains confident in the fairness of its processes and in its compliance at all times with the rules and practice of the House of Commons.
From the start of its inquiry the Committee has offered Mr Johnson the opportunity to provide written evidence. In its report published on 2 March 2023, the Committee set out a summary of principal issues to be raised with Mr Johnson in oral evidence, at his request, and at the same time disclosed to him all the evidence received by the Committee and the identities of all witnesses.
Mr Johnson has now provided written evidence, which can be read here.
Ahead of the oral evidence session on Wednesday, the Committee will be publishing, again by agreement with Mr Johnson, a “core bundle” of documents to which the Committee and Mr Johnson may refer in the course of the questioning.
These documents will be published on the Committee website at 9.00 am today.
The Committee of Privileges will hear oral evidence in public from Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP from 2pm today (Wednesday 22 March).
The session can be watched on Parliament TV here. There is no approximate end time for the session.
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.”
Work is a central aspect of people’s live as it often provides their principal source of income and can provide a sense of purpose. Employment can also contribute to an individual’s feelings of self-respect and dignity. However, the world of work has also been recognised as involving an imbalance of power between employer and workers This imbalance can lead to exploitation, discrimination and other harmful practices.
States have an obligation to protect workers from breaches of their human rights. This can include ensuring employers don’t interfere with their worker’s freedom of association, for example by preventing them from joining a trade union. States also have an obligation to ensure workers aren’t subject to surveillance and workplace monitoring that amounts to a breach of their right to private and family life.
There are a large number of laws and regulations that protect rights at work. This inquiry will specifically look at how the universal protections guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights apply to the world of work and the rights of workers.
The Committee is undertaking a separate piece of work providing legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill.
Committee Chair Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “Employment often has an inherent power imbalance that can leave workers vulnerable to exploitation or discrimination. There is an obligation on the Government to ensure that there is a comprehensive framework in place that ensure the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights are protected at work.
“The Joint Committee on Human Rights has launched this inquiry to understand how rights are currently protected at work and pinpoint where greater safeguards may be needed.”
Terms of reference
The Committee invites written evidence on the following questions. The deadline for submitting written evidence is 24 March 2023. Please note, your submission does not need to address every question in the terms of reference.
Does the current law effectively protect the rights of trade unions and workers to take industrial action under Article 11 ECHR? Does the law effectively protect the right to strike for the purposes of other international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organisation Conventions?
The right to privacy and surveillance at work
What forms of surveillance, if any, that are used to monitor workers raise concerns under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life)? Are there any associated concerns under Article 14 (freedom from discrimination)?
What is the legal framework in the UK that governs surveillance in the workplace?
Where surveillance is used to monitor workers, does the current legal framework adequately protect their Article 8 right to private and family life? If not, what changes need to be made to ensure it does?
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression in the workplace
Does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 9 right to freedom of religion or belief and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?
Does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 10 right to freedom of expression and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?
Does domestic law provide adequate protection for the rights of workers to be free from harassment at work by third parties on account of their religion or beliefs?
Labour market exploitation
What is the current legal and policy framework for tackling labour exploitation in the UK? Is that framework effective to protect workers’ rights under Article 4 ECHR, which prohibits slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour?
Are there any improvements that could be made to better tackle exploitative labour practices which are contrary to Article 4 in the UK?
Do workers from particular groups or in precarious employment disproportionately experience labour market exploitation? Does this raise concerns under Article 14 ECHR (freedom from discrimination)?
Retained EU Law and workers’ rights
To what extent is the UK’s compliance with its human rights obligations, in relation to the protection of workers, currently dependent on retained EU law?
International human rights treaties
Does the UK effectively comply with its international obligations to protect workers’ rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, and International Labour Organisation Conventions? If not, what improvements should be made?
Closing date for written submissions is 24 March 2023.
A Westminster committee has found that BBC Chair Richard Sharp made ‘significant errors of judgement’ when failing to declare his role in the facilitation of a loan to the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and should reflect on the potential damage caused to trust in the corporation.
In a report published today, the Committee says that his omissions denied MPs the opportunity to fulfil their scrutiny role, as they were left without the full facts to make a judgement on his suitability when he appeared before the Committee for a pre-appointment hearing in January 2021.
The report calls on Mr Sharp to now consider the impact his actions will have on the trust in him, the BBC and the public appointment process and for the Government and all those involved to ensure future processes are not clouded by partial disclosure.
The Committee also notes that the issue of why the Cabinet Secretary believed Mr Sharp had been giving financial advice to Mr Johnson, which Mr Sharp denies, remains unresolved. The Cabinet Office should clear up the confusion immediately.
Digital Culture Media and Sports Committee Acting Chair, Damian Green MP, said: “The public appointments process can only work effectively if everyone is open and transparent, yet Richard Sharp chose not to tell either the appointment panel or our Committee about his involvement in the facilitation of a loan to Boris Johnson.
Such a significant error of judgment meant we were not in the full possession of the facts when we were required to rule on his suitability for the role of BBC Chair.”
Neither the BBC nor Richard Sharp have so far responded to the report.
The Government response to the Women and Equalities Committee report on menopause and the workplace is a “missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce.”
Published today, the UK Government’s response rejects five of the Committee’s recommendations outright, including the recommendation to consult on making menopause a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and pilot a specific menopause leave policy.
In a letter to Health Minister Maria Caulfield, the Chair of the Committee Caroline Nokes expressed concern that the Government has “ignored the significant evidence base” for equality law reform and called on the Government to review its position.
The Committee also highlights the low cost but high impact opportunities for model workplace menopause policies and menopause leave, which the Government has dismissed.
In the letter, the Committee highlighted it was “extremely disappointing that the Menopause Taskforce has not met since prior to the summer recess, and that the industry roundtable on HRT supplies has been delayed a number of times.”
The Committee’s report, published in July 2022, argued that the overlooked impact of menopause is causing the UK economy to ‘haemorrhage talent’.
It also argued that the current law does not sufficiently protect women experiencing menopause and does not offer proper redress to those who suffer menopause related discrimination, with evidence that many women have to demonstrate their menopausal symptoms amount to a disability to get redress.
Though the Government said it has accepted, partly accepted or accepted in principle six of the recommendations, it comes under criticism from the Committee for not actually committing to any new work in response to the report.
Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP, said: “This belated response to our report is a missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce, and leaves me unconvinced that menopause is a Government priority.
“For too long women have faced stigma, shame and dismissive attitudes when it comes to menopause. The evidence to our inquiry was crystal clear that urgent action was needed across healthcare and work settings to properly address women’s needs, yet Government progress has been glacial and its response complacent.
“Its refusal to even consult on reforming equalities law doesn’t make sense and we urge it to look again.”
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has made an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
Oral statement by Scottish Secretary Alister Jack to the House of Commons yesterday in relation to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill:
Mr Speaker, today I will make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
This Order will mean the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament will not submit the Bill for Royal Assent.
This Government believes however that transgender people deserve our respect, our support and our understanding.
My decision is centred on the legislation’s consequences for the operation of reserved matters, including equality legislation across Scotland, England and Wales.
The Scottish Government’s Bill would introduce a new process for applying for legal gender recognition in Scotland.
The changes include reducing the minimum age a person can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate from eighteen to sixteen, and removing the need for a medical diagnosis and evidence of having lived for two years in their acquired gender.
The Bill would amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which legislated for a single gender recognition system across the UK and which received a Legislative Consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament.
The approach taken in the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill was the subject of intense debate in the Scottish Parliament.
A number of significant amendments were tabled right up until the end of the Bill’s passage.
And the Minister for Women and Equalities corresponded with and met with the Cabinet Secretary Shona Robison to discuss the UK Government’s concerns, before the Bill had reached its final stage.
Mr Speaker, I have not taken this decision lightly.
The Government has looked closely at the potential impact of the Bill and I have considered all relevant policy and operational implications, together with the Minister for Women and Equalities.
And it is our assessment that the Bill would have a serious adverse impact, among other things, on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.
Those adverse effects include impacts on the operation of single-sex clubs, associations and schools, and protections such as equal pay.
The Government shares the concerns of many members of the public and civic society groups regarding the potential impact of the Bill on women and girls.
The Bill also risks creating significant complications from having two different gender recognition regimes in the UK and allowing more fraudulent or bad faith applications.
The Government is today publishing a full Statement of Reasons, alongside the order, which will set in full the adverse effects the Government is concerned about (see below – Ed.).
Mr Speaker, I would like to address the claims put forward by those who would seek to politicise this decision and claim that this is some kind of “constitutional outrage” and you can hear them Mr Speaker, you can hear them.
The section 35 power was included in the Scotland Act, which established the Scottish Parliament.
This the first time the power has been exercised and I acknowledge that this is a significant decision.
The powers in Section 35 of the Scotland Act are not new, and this Government has not created them. They have existed as long as devolution itself.
And we should be clear that the power was included in the Act by the architects of devolution for a reason. Donald Dewar himself noted that the power struck an “important balance”.
The section 35 power provides a sensible measure to ensure that devolved legislation does not have adverse impacts on reserved matters, including on equalities legislation such as the Equality Act 2010.
This is not about preventing the Scottish Parliament from legislating on devolved matters but about ensuring that we do not have legal frameworks in one part of the UK which have adverse effects on reserved matters.
And we should be clear that this is absolutely not about the UK Government being able to veto Scottish Parliament legislation whenever it chooses, as some have implied.
The power can only be exercised on specific grounds – and the fact that this is the first time it has been necessary to exercise the power in almost twenty-five years of devolution emphasises that it is not a power to be used lightly.
In the instance of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, I have concluded that the bill would have serious, adverse effects on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.
As I set out in my correspondence with the First Minister yesterday, I would prefer not to be in this situation.
The UK Government does all we can to respect the devolution settlement and to resolve disputes.
It is open to the Scottish Government to bring back an amended Bill for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament.
So to conclude, Mr Speaker, I have set out to the Scottish Government that should they choose to do so, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told the BBC that the Scottish government will seek a judicial review of the Westminster government’s decision at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
There’s every possibility that this constitutional wrangle will end up in the UK’s Supreme Court.
‘This is a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament‘ – First Minister Nicola Sturgeon
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack has made an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said last night: “I have decided to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
“After thorough and careful consideration of all the relevant advice and the policy implications, I am concerned that this legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation.
“Transgender people who are going through the process to change their legal sex deserve our respect, support and understanding. My decision today is about the legislation’s consequences for the operation of GB-wide equalities protections and other reserved matters.
“I have not taken this decision lightly. The Bill would have a significant impact on, amongst other things, GB-wide equalities matters in Scotland, England and Wales. I have concluded, therefore, that this is the necessary and correct course of action.
“If the Scottish Government chooses to bring an amended Bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
“I have written today to the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer informing them of my decision.”
Reacting to the announcement last night, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: “This is a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament and it’s ability to make it’s own decisions on devolved matters.
“@scotgov will defend the legislation & stand up for Scotland’s Parliament. If this Westminster veto succeeds, it will be first of many”
The Scottish Secretary will address Westminster later today to further explain the reasons for this unprecedented decision. Doubtless Holyrood, too, will have much to say.
Survey shows public backing for senior tech managers to be held legally responsible for safety and liable if products cause serious harm to children
MPs, bereaved parents, and 2,192 campaigners in Scotland back calls to strengthen Online Safety Bill’s response to protecting children on social media
NSPCC estimates over 21,000 online child sexual offences recorded by police since legislation was delayed last summer
Four out of five (84%) adults in Scotland want senior tech managers to be appointed and held legally responsible for stopping children being harmed by social media, according to new polling of UK adults, of which 200 live in Scotland.
The survey by YouGov also found that 72% of those with an opinion in Scotland would want senior managers prosecuted for failures that resulted in serious harm to children.
The NSPCC, who commissioned the research, said the findings show overwhelming public support for tougher enforcement measures in the UK Government’s Online Safety Bill.
Currently, the legislation would only hold tech bosses responsible for failing to give information to the regulator Ofcom, and not for corporate decisions that result in preventable harm or sexual abuse.
The move is being supported by Ruth Moss, whose 13-year-old daughter Sophie died by suicide after viewing suicidal and self-harm posts and being groomed on social media.
The Edinburgh nurse has been campaigning with the NSPCC for several years for robust new legislation that would force tech bosses to make their sites safe for children.
Ruth Mosssaid: “As far as I’m concerned, where companies wilfully break the law and put the lives of children like my daughter at risk, of course senior managers should be criminally accountable. The consequences of non- compliance are life changing for children like Sophie.
“Criminal liability drives the right behaviours in those with the most responsibility. It works in other industries and there is no reason in my mind as to why big tech executives should be treated any differently.”
The Online Safety Bill has been subject to delays amid intense scrutiny in recent months as the UK Government amended elements relating to adult safety.
The Culture Secretary Michelle Donelan has repeatedly said protections for children would be strengthened and campaigners argue holding tech bosses liable for the safety of young users would send a signal of intent to Big Tech.
2,192 people in Scotland signed an open letter to Ms Donelan calling for the legislation to properly hold senior managers to account for the safety of sites children use.
Rachel Talbot, 15, from Angus in Scotland, who handed the letter into the Culture Secretary with other members of the NSPCC’s Young People’s Board for Change, said: “Far too much pressure is put on young people from such a young age to keep themselves safe online.
“Too many children are exposed to content promoting self-harm and eating disorders. It’s become a norm in our everyday lives.
“We need a Bill that is going to hold big tech firms accountable. Without it, young people are on their own. We’ve been on our own for so long online – and it’s not working.”
Some Conservative MPs are also calling on the Government to amend the Bill to hold senior managers liable for children’s safety when it returns to UK Parliament this month (January 16th).
Senior MPs including former Home Secretary Priti Patel, Sir William Cash and Miriam Cates are backing the amendment which would mean tech bosses would finally be held to account if their platforms contributed to the serious harm, abuse, or death of a child.
Campaigners say the UK risks being out of step as Irish laws passed last month will hold senior tech bosses liable for online safety changes.
But they argued that making the suggested changes would cement the UK as a global authority for children’s safety online.
Miriam Cates MP said: “It’s clear to most people that the big global tech companies are not going to wake up one day and suddenly decide to start protect children from harmful online content.
“We have seen repeated failures of Big tech to protect children from the horrors of sexual exploitation, pornography and content that draws them into self-harm and suicide, and sadly the Online Safety Bill as it stands will not stop this.
“The only way to secure the change we desperately need is to make senior directors personally responsible for failures to protect children and that’s why I urge all MPs to support this amendment to include senior manager liability in the Online Safety Bill.”
The amendment has cross-party support including from the Labour frontbench.
Shadow Culture Secretary Lucy Powell MP said: “Labour has long called for the online safety bill to be strengthened especially when it comes to the liability – including criminal liability – of social media bosses. Without these sanctions there’s a real risk that a UK regulator will be toothless.
“Yet instead of strengthening the laws, the Government has recently gutted and watered down the bill, letting social media companies off the hook and allowing harms, abuse and hate to continue.
“I welcome the campaigning work of the NSPCC to toughen this Bill.”
The NSPCC said senior managers must also be liable for preventing child sexual abuse that is taking place at a record scale online.
The charity estimates that 600 online child sexual abuse crimes will have been recorded by Police Scotland in the time the legislation was delayed in July until it is likely to pass through Parliament on January 16th.
Sir Peter Wanless, NSPCC Chief Executive, said:“2022 was the year the Online Safety Bill faced delay after delay while children faced sexual abuse on an industrial scale and tech bosses sat on their hands as their algorithms continued to bombard young users with hugely dangerous material.
“This year must be the year legislation delivers the systemic change for children online that our polling shows families up and down the UK want.
“The Government can do this by delivering bold, world-leading regulation that ensures the buck stops with senior management for the safety of our children.”
“Problems in the energy supply market were apparent in 2018 – years before the unprecedented spike in prices that sparked the current crisis, and Ofgem was too slow to act.“
In a report published today Westminster’s Public Accounts Committee calls on the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem to say how they will make “the energy retail market work in the best interests of customers during the transition to net zero” after finding that failures at the energy regulator have come “at a considerable cost to billpayers”.
Since July 2021, 29 energy suppliers have failed, affecting around 4 million households. Customers have been left to pay the £2.7 billion cost of supplier failures. This means an extra £94 per household, a cost that will very likely increase.
The Committee found that this was due to “Ofgem’s failure to effectively regulate the energy supplier market”.
Ofgem “did not strike the right balance between promoting competition in the energy suppliers market and ensuring energy suppliers were financially resilient”.
Despite problems with the financial resilience of energy retailers emerging in 2018 Ofgem did not tighten requirements for new suppliers until 2019, and for existing suppliers until 2021. By this point wholesale gas and electricity prices increased to unprecedented levels.
The price cap “is providing only very limited protection to households from increases in the wholesale price of energy”, and Ofgem expects prices could “get significantly worse through 2023”. The Committee says BEIS and Ofgem should “review the costs and benefits of the price cap from a consumer’s perspective” to inform decisions about the future of energy price controls.
The position of vulnerable customers, who already pay higher energy prices, is “unacceptable”.
Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “ “It is true that global factors caused the unprecedented gas and electricity prices that have caused so many energy supplier failures over the last year, at such terrible cost to households. But the fact remains that we have regulators to set the framework to shore us up for the bad times.
“Problems in the energy supply market were apparent in 2018 – years before the unprecedented spike in prices that sparked the current crisis, and Ofgem was too slow to act.
“Households will pay dear, with the cost of bailouts added to record and rising bills. The PAC wants to see a plan, within six months, for how Government and Ofgem will put customers’ interests at the heart of a reformed energy market, driving the transition to Net Zero.”
The Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry examines the Government’s policies and procedures relating to asylum seekers and the impact these have on their human rights.
This will include the UK’s approach the availability of “safe and legal” routes for asylum seekers, the treatment of those arriving outside of these routes, and attempts to relocate asylum seekers outside the UK. It will also examine the treatment of asylum seekers once in the UK, including treatment in short-term holding facilities, conditions in detention, accommodation, restrictions on movement, and the right to work.
The inquiry also assesses whether the UK’s current legal framework is adequate to meet its human rights obligations to those who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “The UK has a long-standing obligation to provide a place of sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution.
“We have launched this inquiry to examine whether the current approach to asylum meets the UK’s human rights obligations. Are the current routes for asylum seekers to come to the UK adequate, and is it right for those excluded from “safe and legal routes” to be punished for coming to the UK even if they have fled conflict or persecution?
“Can the UK outsource its asylum obligations to third countries and still ensure the human rights of those seeking asylum are protected?
“We want to look beyond fearful headlines about the cost of hotel accommodation or the numbers of asylum seekers arriving, to consider the experience of those going through the asylum system and the way they are treated.
“Fundamentally, is the way asylum seekers are treated appropriate and lawful, or is the UK Government falling short of the human rights standards designed to protect them, and all of us?
“Given the terrible conditions we have witnessed at Manston and the new Home Secretary’s seeming delight at the prospect of further flights to Rwanda, this inquiry could not be more timely.”
Background
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 14 that “everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.
The Refugee Convention built on this with the establishment of a regime of international refugee protection, which was ratified by the UK in 1954. The Convention defines a refugee as a person outside their country of nationality or habitual residence, due to well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and unable or unwilling to return to that country for fear of persecution.
In addition, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Amongst other things, it prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR), as well as slavery and forced labour (Article 4 ECHR). It also provides for a right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR) and a right to private and family life (Art 8 ECHR).
Asylum seekers often come from countries affected by violence, conflict, and human rights abuses, and a portion of those who leave come to the UK.
In 2022, the number of new asylum applications rose to 63,089, from 48,540 in the previous year. As of June 2022, there were 122,213 asylum claims pending an initial decision, out of which 89,231 cases had been pending an initial decision for more than 6 months. Most asylum claims in the UK are successful – in 2021, the estimated overall grant rate where a final outcome has been reached was 77%.
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 made significant amendments to the legislative framework for the asylum system. Changes include the introduction of new powers to remove asylum seekers, the creation of a two-tier system for asylum claims, and the inadmissibility of claims by persons with a connection to safe third States.
The Government has also sought through the UK Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership to send certain asylum seekers to Rwanda to make claims for asylum in Rwanda.
Terms of reference
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is looking into the rights of asylum seekers in the UK, with a view to identifying human rights concerns. To inform its work, the Committee invites submissions of no more than 1,500 words from interested groups and individuals. The deadline for submissions is 15 December 2022. We would welcome evidence covering the following questions:
1. Is it compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations to deny asylum to those who do not use what the Government calls “safe and legal routes”? 2. What “safe and legal routes” currently exist for asylum seekers in the UK? Should new routes be introduced?
Relocation of asylum seekers
3. Is the policy of relocating asylum seekers to third countries consistent with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Detention
4. Are the rules on detention and processing, and the treatment of detained asylum seekers, consistent with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Electronic tagging
5. Is the electronic tagging of asylum seekers a necessary and proportionate interference with their human rights?
Legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence
6. Is the support available to asylum seekers under the legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence rules compliant with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Right to work
7. How do the rules on right to work impact on the human rights of asylum seekers?
Modern slavery
8. Is the UK’s legal framework for tackling modern slavery and human trafficking effective, and is it compatible with our human rights obligations? Are there changes that should be made?
9. Is there any evidence that modern slavery laws are being abused by people “gaming” the system?
Nationality and Borders Act 2022
10. To what extent has the enactment of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 had an impact on the human rights of asylum seekers?
We understand that the issues raised in this work may be sensitive or upsetting and the following organisations may be able to offer support or further information:
Asylum Aid – free legal aid advice and representation to asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. Call 020 7354 9631 Email advice@asylumaid.org.uk
British Red Cross – support to refugees and asylum seekers in the UK including emergency assistance to those who are destitute, and family reunion and resettlement services. Call 0808 196 3651
London Destitution Service – Refugee Council – support for asylum seekers or rejected asylum seekers who are destitute, and support to vulnerable and homeless asylum seekers who have lost contact with their asylum application and have no legal representation. Call 02073466700 Email destitution@refugeecouncil.org.uk
Migrant Help – free 24/7 helpline providing independent advice and support to asylum seekers in the UK in your own language. Call 0808 8010 503 Webchat; Online Enquiry Form
Samaritans – for everyone, 24 hours a day, every day. Call 116 123
