This report welcomes the Bill's potentially human rights enhancing objectives of taking measures to protect the public from crime, at the same time as focusing on rehabilitation and extending positive support to those vulnerable people who receive short-term prison sentences. However, it remains concerned that insufficient information was provided by the Government (i) to demonstrate the compatibility of the provisions of the Bill with relevant international standards other than the ECHR and (ii) to support its assertion that the proposals have been considered fully in line with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. The Committee calls on the Government to publish the information which demonstrates this without delay. The Committee welcomes the Government's assurance that private providers of probation services are obliged to act compatibly with human rights law but recommends that there should be statutory provision in the Bill setting out the providers' duties. The Committee calls on the Government to develop clear guidance on the human rights obligations of private probation providers, and to set out how it will monitor the performance of the contracted providers in this regard

The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts that the measures in the Immigration Bill serve the legitimate aim of immigration control, but is concerned that some of them may be applied in practice in a way which breaches human rights in particular cases. The Committee is particularly concerned about the risk of the new provisions relating to residential tenancies giving rise in practice to homelessness in the case of people who have no right to remain in the UK but face genuine barriers to leaving. The Committee is also concerned to ensure that these measures do not give rise to an undue risk that migrant children will be exposed to homelessness or separation from family members. The provisions in the Bill on access to residential tenancies may heighten the risk of racial discrimination against prospective tenants, notwithstanding the fact that such discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act. The First Tier Tribunal, not the Secretary of State, should decide whether it is within

The report The Implications For Access To Justice Of The Government's Proposals To Reform Legal Aid (HL100, HC 766) concludes that the government should reconsider its proposals for the reform of legal aid. The government has so far made welcome exemptions to its proposed residence test in the light of responses to its consultation, but the Committee is still not satisfied that the proposed test will not affect vulnerable groups. While accepting that it is legitimate for the government to introduce a residence test for civil legal aid and to restrict the scope of prison law funding, the Committee calls for more and broader exemptions from these proposals to avoid breaches of the fundamental right of effective access to justice in individual cases. The exceptional funding framework may not be working as intended and could therefore leave certain groups unable to access legal aid when human rights law requires it. The proposal to remove cases with

The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts that the measures in the Immigration Bill serve the legitimate aim of immigration control, but is concerned that some of them may be applied in practice in a way which breaches human rights in particular cases. The Committee is particularly concerned about the risk of the new provisions relating to residential tenancies giving rise in practice to homelessness in the case of people who have no right to remain in the UK but face genuine barriers to leaving. The Committee is also concerned to ensure that these measures do not give rise to an undue risk that migrant children will be exposed to homelessness or separation from family members. The provisions in the Bill on access to residential tenancies may heighten the risk of racial discrimination against prospective tenants, notwithstanding the fact that such discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act. The First Tier Tribunal, not the Secretary of State, should decide whether it is within its jurisdiction to consider a new matter raised on an appeal. In the report, the Committee concludes that the restriction on appeal rights might constitute a serious threat to the practical ability to access the legal system to challenge unlawful immigration and asylum decisions, and to enforce the statutory duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising immigration and asylum functions. The Committee also comments on other aspects of the Bill.

Stephen Gardbaum proposes and examines a new way of protecting rights in a democracy.

The Government set out detailed policy proposals for changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in its White Paper (Cm.6989, ISBN 9780101698924) published in December 2006. These proposed changes to the law and regulation relating to human reproductive technologies, following on from a public consultation exercise undertaken during 2005, sought to balance the competing claims of reproductive liberty and responsibility, patient safety, child welfare, professional autonomy and public accountability. The overarching aim is to achieve the common good through a system which is broadly acceptable to society, given the complex ethical issues involved, and which is effective given the pace of scientific developments. This present document contains the draft text of the proposed Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, published in order to enable pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposals by a Parliamentary Committee. It includes the text of the draft Bill, explanatory notes, a draft regulatory impact assessment and a version of how the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act would look if amended by the draft Bill and the EU Tissue Directive. The proposals include the creation of the new single regulatory authority on the use of human tissue, cells and blood, to be called the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos (RATE), to replace the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority.

This report says Parliament should not introduce any new privacy statute. It concludes that in weighing the competing rights to privacy and freedom of expression, each case must be judged on its own merits. The bar for limiting freedom of expression must be set high, but the courts are now striking a better balance in dealing with applications for privacy injunctions. Criticism that privacy law has been "judge-made", noting that it evolved from the Human Rights Act is rejected. The Committee says the most important step towards improving protection of privacy is to provide for enhanced regulation of the media. The Press Complaints Commission lacked the power, sanctions or independence to be truly effective. Substantial changes to press regulation are needed to ensure that it encompasses all major news publishers including, in time, major bloggers. The Committee makes several recommendations including that the reformed regulator should: have access to a wider range of sanctions, including the power to fine; be cost-free to complainants; be able to determine the size and location of a published apology, and the date of publication; play a greater role in arbitrating and mediating privacy disputes. One possible mechanism the Committee suggests is for advertisers to agree to advertise only in publications that are members of the press regulator and subscribe to its rules. It also concludes that parliamentarians should ensure that material subject to an injunction is only revealed in Parliament when there is good reason to do so

This two-volume book, published open access, brings together leading scholars of constitutional law from twenty-nine European countries to revisit the role of national constitutions at a time when decision-making has increasingly shifted to the European and transnational level. It offers important insights into three areas. First, it explores how constitutions reflect the transfer of powers from domestic to European and global institutions. Secondly, it revisits substantive constitutional values, such as the protection of constitutional rights, the rule of law, democratic participation and constitutional review, along with constitutional court judgments that tackle the protection of these rights and values in the transnational context, e.g. with regard to the Data Retention Directive, the European Arrest Warrant, the ESM Treaty, and EU and IMF austerity measures. The responsiveness of the ECJ regarding the above rights and values, along with the standard of protection, is also assessed. Thirdly, challenges in the context of global governance in relation to judicial review, democratic control and accountability are examined. On a broader level, the contributors were also invited to reflect on what has increasingly been described as the erosion or ‘twilight’ of constitutionalism, or a shift to a thin version of the rule of law, democracy and judicial review in the context of Europeanisation and globalisation processes. The national reports are complemented by a separately published comparative study, which identifies a number of broader trends and challenges that are shared across several Member States and warrant wider discussion. The research for this publication and the comparative study were carried out within the framework of the ERC-funded project ‘The Role and Future of National Constitutions in European and Global Governance’. The book is aimed at scholars, researchers, judges and legal advisors working on the interface between national constitutional law and EU and transnational law. The extradition cases are also of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of criminal law. Anneli Albi is Professor of European Law at the University of Kent, United Kingdom. Samo Bardutzky is Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.