Terrorism Act 2000 Remedial Order 2011

The Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011, an urgent remedial order concerning exceptional counter-terrorism powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion was made by the Home Secretary on 17 March 2011 and came into force on 18 March 2011. The purpose of the Order is to remove the incompatibility of the current statutory powers to stop and search without reasonable suspicion (in sections 44 to 46 of the Terrorism Act 2000) with the right to respect the private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts the necessity of introducing a replacement stop and search power and agree with the Government there are compelling reasons for using the remedial order procedure. It does provide for much greater parliamentary scrutiny, but the Committee does recommend that the Government provides more detailed evidence of the sorts of circumstances in which the police have experienced the existence of an operational gap in the absence of a power to stop and search. Without such detailed scrutiny it is difficult for the Committee to reach a view as to the appropriateness of proceeding by urgent remedial order. The Committee also recommends that the Order be replaced with a new Order modifying the provisions and removing the incompatibility identified by the ECHR.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011 : Monday 10 October 2011

Enabling power: Human Rights Act 1998, s. 10 (2), sch. 2, para. 1 (1). Issued: 18.03.2011. Made: 16.03.2011. Laid: 17.03.2011. Coming into force: 18.03.2011. Effect: 2000 c. 11 modified. Territorial extent & classification: E/W/S/NI. General

Dated June 2012

A draft of the proposed instrument is available separately (ISBN 9780111512357 )

This report welcomes the enhanced human rights protection which the Protection of Freedoms Bill (HC 189, ISBN 9780215558091) would provide, by proposing to repeal or reform measures which impinge on rights and freedoms. But this protection should be strengthened further in some areas. The Committee welcomes the Government's review of existing powers of entry to private properties, including homes, which has identified around 1200 statutory powers with associated powers of entry. But it is deeply concerned that the proposed breadth of proposals in the Bill could create new risks to individual rights by authorising the Government to extend existing powers of entry. The provisions relating to biometric material create a less intrusive mechanism for the retention of DNA and fingerprints. However, the Bill creates some unjustified risks to the individual right to privacy and the Government should provide further justification or amend the Bill significantly. There should be new safeguards in relation to the processing of children's biometric information. The Committee welcomes the proposal for a surveillance code to regulate the operation of CCTV by public authorities, and the permanent reduction in the maximum period of pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects to 14 days. However, it questions whether the need to provide for a contingency power to extend the period of pre-charge detention in the event of a future emergency is supported by the evidence. The Committee also supports changing the Public Order Act 1986 to remove all reference to public order offences based upon insulting words or behaviour.

A draft of the proposed instrument is available separately (ISBN 9780111521403 ). An earlier report on this subject published as HL 200/HC 1549, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780108473791)

The European system of human rights protection faces institutional and political pressures which threaten its very survival. These institional pressures stem from the backlog of applications before the European Court of Human Rights, the large number of its judgments that remain unimplemented, and the political pressures that arise from sustained attacks on the Court's legitimacy and authority, notably from politicians and jurists in the United Kingdom. This book addresses the theme which lies at the heart of these pressures: the role of national parliaments in the implementation of judgments of the Court. It combines theoretical and empirical insights into the role of parliaments in securing domestic compliance with the Court's decisions, and provides detailed investigation of five European states with differing records of human rights compliance and parliamentary mobilisation: Ukraine, Romania, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. How far are parliaments engaged in implementation, and how far should they be? Do parliaments advance or hinder human rights compliance? Is it ever justifiable for parliaments to defy judgments of the Court? And how significant is the role played by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? Drawing on the fields of international law, international relations, political science, and political philosophy, the book argues that adverse human rights judgments not only confer obligations on parliamentarians but also create opportunities for them to develop influential interpretations of human rights and enhance their own democratic legitimacy. It makes an authoritative contribution to debate about the future of the European and other supranational human rights mechanisms and the broader relationship between democracy, human rights, and legitimate authority.