What does the Data Protection and Digital Information bill mean for human rights? Join the conversation

When: Online on Tuesday 21 May, 2024 2.00 to 3.00 pm.

The Data Protection and Digital Information bill  (DPDI) was introduced to the House of Commons on 8 November 2023, swiftly followed by 3rd reading and Report on 29 November 2023, adding 156 pages of amendments and 38 new clauses, leaving little opportunity for proper scrutiny of a bill that “gives the Government sweeping powers and limits the rights of our fellow citizens, the public.” (Sir Chris Bryant). Civil society organisations have raised a range of concerns around the bill,  highlighted by Peers during the recent Committee stage in the House of Lords.

 Please join us for an informal conversation to understand how the bill engages key rights and access to justice issues that will impact on citizens, especially but not exclusively those who are vulnerable. The focus will be on human rights protections that are at risk, including the right to privacy and non-discrimination, bringing together the concerns of trade unions as well as human rights, healthcare, racial justice, and other organisations.

If you wish to attend please email info@civilsocietyalliance.uk

--------------------------------------------------

Strengthening civil society impact on Westminster in the years ahead

Leading civil society experts from across the UK gathered in Cardiff Bay on 21-22 March 2024 to identify key shared priorities in the run up to the General Election and beyond. Funded by the Legal Education Foundation, this high-profile event was hosted by WCVA and the Wales Governance Centre, in partnership with the Civil Society Alliance and the Human Rights Consortia in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Ruth Marks, Chief Executive of WCVA, welcomed over 90 delegates from across all four parts of the UK to the event, being “held at a crucial time for the sector as we respond to new challenges and operate in a tight financial climate.”

In his keynote address, the Secretary of State for Wales, David TC Davies, spoke of the valued role civil society has to play in UK policy making and in connecting communities to decision makers.

Academics, campaigners and charity leaders from Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales provided their insight into the challenges and opportunities of bringing community voices from each of the four parts of the UK to debate developments at Westminster. Topics included the operation of devolution, how charities engage with devolved and central decision makers, and debates and developments around constitutional reform.

“We respect you, we admire you and we thank you” said Lilian Greenwood MP, Shadow Minister for Civil Society in her opening remarks, posing the question of how best to support the huge breadth of civil society and unlock the potential for change and renewal.

Former First Minister for Wales Mark Drakeford MS shared his six suggestions for influencing success: “Be authentic - Be authoritative - Be local - Be there (where decisions are made) - Be vocal - Be bold”

A great many ideas and suggestions were discussed throughout the two days (general election planning, asks around civil society engagement with UK Government, asks around future devolution reform in key areas like equality and human rights…)

Photographer: Natasha Hirst

#4NationsCivilSociety Civil Society Alliance Conferences and Events

Setting a new agenda - delivering on promises for a high standards UK

A core objective of the Civil Society Alliance is for a high standards UK. The 2019 Conservative Party manifesto also committed to raising standards for workers’ rights, environmental protections, and protecting consumers.[i]

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act (REUL), which entered into force on 30 June 2023, is an excellent opportunity for the Government to implement those commitments.

Politics of REUL

The Government’s original plan was to ‘make a bonfire’ of all REUL through a sunset clause that would have seen everything not marked for retention automatically fall away on 31 December 2023.  It is reasonable to conclude this was a politically motivated approach. Liz Truss launched her leadership run off campaign by promising a “sunset” for all EU-derived laws by the end of 2023.  Rishi Sunak’s response was a campaign video showing him putting all EU laws through the shredder and pledging a review in his first 100 days in office.

It is disappointing that politics got in the way of proper debate and meaningful consultation. Exchanges in both Houses were diminished by rhetoric accusing “Remainers” of resisting changes. This to the visible frustration of those MPs and Peers who wanted their legitimate concerns about the legislation to be addressed – particularly around the cliff edge of the initial sunset clause.  It was a missed opportunity to develop a vision for a high standards UK and to “restore Parliamentary control.”[ii]  

Introducing a more pragmatic approach

Kemi Badenoch, Secretary of State for Business and Trade’s decision to remove the automatic sunset clause from the bill[iii] and her assurances that REUL “is not a bonfire of regulations. We are not arsonists,” was a welcome and significant turning point.  Nevertheless, serious questions remain around the process the Government will use “to get rid of laws that we don’t want”[iv] particularly as there is no provision to include civil society in “the proper assessment and consultation to be carried out.[v] 

Openness and transparency

Given the absence of provision in the Act for public consultation, what are the arrangements for ensuring there will be effective Parliamentary scrutiny, particularly as the Commons repeatedly voted down Lords amendments designed to do just that?  Section 17 of the Act requires only that the REUL dashboard be kept up to date, and that between now and 23 June 2026 six monthly reports of revoked and reformed REUL must be laid before Parliament, alongside plans for the next reporting period.

In May 2023, Civil Society Alliance wrote an open letter to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade calling for the Government to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and a high standards UK.  We asked the Government to publish details of further aspects of REUL that it does not intend to retain, alongside the rationale for their decision-making. Given its expertise on how different elements of REUL impact individuals and communities, civil society is well placed to help inform those decisions.

Should they stay or should they go?

Throughout the Parliamentary process, Ministers repeatedly gave assurances of the Government’s commitments to ensure there would be no lowering of environmental protections or standards[vi], with a better focus on renewables[vii].  There was no intention to abandon our strong record on workers’ rights[viii] . Ministers repeated their commitment to maintain the UK’s leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, equality, and the rule of law[ix]. Consumers would be protected from unsafe products and would benefit from the promotion of robust food standards both nationally and internationally[x]. Moreover, the devolved Governments could rest assured that the concurrent nature of the powers in the Act was not intended to affect the devolution settlements, nor to influence decision-making in devolved Governments[xi].

Accountability for any backtracking

So how are those assurances playing out so far?  Over the summer recess, the Government published several consultations under its ‘smarter regulation’ banner.  These include the long awaited consultation on product safety, which advocates a more “agile framework”. Proposals include categorisation of products by hazard and the introduction of voluntary e-labelling.  It also includes the proposal to establish a derogation process, building on the COVID-19 emergency response measures for the supply of PPE, that would enable businesses to apply for temporary regulatory easements to speed up supply of essential products in emergencies.

The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the independent body established under the Environment Act 2021, continues to challenge Environment Secretary, Therese Coffey, over her stance on the National Emission Ceilings Regulations (NECR). The NECR include national emission reduction targets, which are set for five key pollutants. Whilst committing to keeping “most” of the regulations during the passage of the REUL bill[xii], the Environment Secretary insists that regulations 9 and 10 must go to “reduce administrative burdens and aid transparency regarding air quality emissions policy.”   The regulations require consultation, preparation, and implementation of a national air pollution control programme to reduce pollutants including nitrogen oxides and ammonia.

At Report stage of the Levelling up and Regeneration bill in the House of Lords, without prior public consultation, the Government introduced a series of amendments for a new Schedule, which if passed would have potentially “disapplied nature protection laws to allow pollution without mitigation in England’s most sensitive nature sites”.

The current nutrient neutrality scheme requires developers to improve local habitats or pay for “credits” to offset the nitrate and phosphate pollution of rivers caused by run-off from new construction in protected areas. The Government argued the changes were needed to encourage housebuilders to build an additional 100k homes, promising to double Natural England’s wetland funding to £280m (funded from the public purse) to meet the Environment Act’s requirements.

Caroline Lucas MP raised an urgent question in the House of Commons asking the Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities why the Government were using the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to scrap environmental protections on nutrient neutrality - thereby “backtracking on commitments made during the passage of the REUL bill that leaving the EU would not lead to a weakening of environmental standards”.  In the event the proposed amendments were rejected by the Lords by 203 votes to 156[xiii]. 

Open and accountable lawmaking 

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the REUL Act has the potential to enable Ministers to make policy changes using mechanisms that were not headlined as such.  It is difficult for Parliamentarians, let alone civil society to keep track of the changes and understand their impacts.

For example, on the first day of the new Parliamentary session, the Business and Trade Minister Nusrat Ghani, published a written statement announcing a further 93 revocations of REUL through the Revocation and Sunset Disapplication Regulations 2023. These were described as “redundant pieces of legislation that do not reflect policy changes.” No full impact assessment would be needed because "no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary, or public sector is foreseen.”[xiv]   Working with other civil society organisations we were eventually able to identify the list of REUL to be revoked and reasonably satisfy ourselves that this was the case. 

This however begs the question of what happens when there are potential policy changes being made without consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny? The Government may claim not to be arsonists in their drive to remove EU laws that it considers redundant. Given their failure to provide proper accountability, transparency, or parliamentary oversight in this process, it may still prove necessary to stand poised at the fire alarm for some time to come.

Rosalind Stevens, Civil Society Alliance, September 2023 

[i] See pages 5 and 33.

[ii] Reference by Lord Hope, House of Lords 15 May 2023, Hansard col. 18 referring to letter from Executive sent to Peers by special messenger on 6 February 2023 (Lord Judge refers, Hansard col 1001.

[iii] Announced in her Regulatory Reform Update statement to the House on 10 May 2023.

[iv] Evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, 6 June 2023

[v] As set out in the response from Nusrat Ghani MP, Minister for Industry and Economic Security, dated 21 June 2023, to the Civil Society Alliance open letter of 17 May 2023.

[vi]  “I can simply repeat the assurances that Ministers have given—ad nauseam, dare I say—that our environmental standards are world leading and will continue to be so” – quote from Solicitor General, Consideration of Lords amendments, 24 May 2023, Hansard col.329

[vii] Nusrat Ghani, Minister for Industry and Economic Security, 3rd reading, 18 January 2023, Hansard, col. 399

[viii] Ibid, Hansard col. 400. Commitments reiterated by the Minister for Industry and Security, in response to Civil Society open letter. 

[ix] Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Lords Report Stage, 15 May 2023, Hansard column 74

[x] Solicitor General, Consideration of Lords amendments, House of Commons, 24 May 2023, Hansard col. 328

[xi] Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Lords Report stage, 15 May 2023, Hansard col. 74

[xii] Lord Callanan, Lords Report Stage, 17 May 2023, Hansard, col.321

[xiii] Including by Conservative Peer, Lord Deben, commenting on what the proposed amendments would mean if passed “That means that the British people are now less protected from government mistakes than any country in the rest of Europe. I make no comment about Brexit, but that is where this House and the other place have left the people of Britain” Wednesday, 13 September 2023 Hansard col. 1045.

[xiv] Explanatory memorandum, para 12 accompanied by line by line explainer

When we focus on shared values, we find belonging

The Common Ground project is delivered in partnership by Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini, the3million and British Future. Writing for CSA member the3million, Project Manager Ola Sobieraj, shares her experience of leading on the Common Ground project. and working with EU communities in the UK.

I am delighted to introduce myself as a new Project Manager at the3million, an organisation which I have followed and admired for its clear vision, resolve and results in campaigning for the rights of EU citizens in the UK post Brexit. I am very excited to be working on our new project Common Ground.

I am Polish, Poland is my home and I am attached to my Polish heritage. I also have a deep sense of European identity even though Poland only joined the EU in 2004 which was in my twenties, and in fact, after I had already come to the UK. I have lived in Northern Ireland ever since and it has become my home too because this is where my loved ones are. Until the Brexit vote.

The referendum and the toxic narrative around it undermined my sense of belonging in the UK and as a result I have become more determined to get involved in public life in an attempt to ensure that my own and the collective voice of EU citizens are properly heard, and our life and rights here are secure and our contributions valued.

This was reflected in my career journey as I moved from coordinating a network of migrant led organisations to managing a frontline service supporting people with EU Settlement Scheme applications.

During the last few years I have met and worked with many European, non-European, British, Irish and Northern Irish people from a whole spectrum of creeds and backgrounds and discovered that despite apparent differences, there were always some values and beliefs we shared. When we focused on those and looked forward, we were able to support each other and feel we all belong here.

The opportunity to join the3million came along at a time when I felt the need to move beyond providing immigration advice to working more strategically on a bigger arena towards effecting a systemic change.

Common Ground is just the ticket!

We have an ambitious goal to foster a positive relationship between the EU and the UK by means of celebrating our shared experiences and shared values and identifying opportunities for collaborations based on those values.

In practice, it means we would love to hear from any person or organisation interested in working across divides to empower EU citizens to thrive in the UK and join a network of like minded people sharing knowledge, good practice and identifying opportunities for collective actions.

the3million will facilitate this network and equip you with tools to engage in meaningful conversations, collaborate and campaign. We have an exciting and varied programme of activities including local engagement events, workshops, online working groups, UK and international conferences as well as arts, journalism and twinning campaigns.

If you’re interested in finding out more or getting involved, please contact us to let us know. We would love to hear from you if you are an EU community worker, leader, volunteer or if you have links with any informal EU citizens’ groupings.

Can lessons from the passage of the Genetic Technology Act help us to raise a louder collective voice?

Liz O’Neill, Director of GM Freeze, reflects on the recent passage of the Genetic Technology Act. What lessons should we learn to help civil society push for more collaborative, effective, and accountable law making in the future?

Genetic Engineering (regardless of branding) has always been controversial subject and the passing of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act was no exception. However, as GM Freeze Director Liz O’Neill explains, concerns about the new law extend far beyond its focus on removing safeguards on the manipulation of plant and animal DNA.

The Genetic Technology Act creates a new class of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Styled as “precision bred organisms”, these GMOs will be released without any requirement for independent risk assessment, anti-contamination measures or labelling on foodstuffs. Already out of step with public opinion, the problems quickly escalate when you discover that the Act’s definition of “precision breeding” is legally vague, highly contested and will be policed by an Advisory Committee of which every member holds potential or actual conflicts of interest with the biotechnology industry, the main financial beneficiaries of the changes in the law.

The Genetic Technology Act only applies directly in England and little heed was paid to the decisions by both the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd to withhold legislative consent. The high profile given to the fate of sausages in the operation of the Northern Ireland Protocol and Windsor Framework demonstrate the complexity of managing divergence within the UK food chain and the influence of the Internal Markets Act will only add to the confusion.

Poor understanding (or willful ignoring?) of the true impacts of the proposed new legislation was one of many reasons why the Regulatory Policy Committee found the Government’s Impact Assessment for this bill “not fit for purpose”. It’s obvious to most people that removing longstanding safeguards will impact the entire food and farming sector but all of Defra’s forecasts and calculations focused on just 75 seed breeders - some 0.03% of the estimated number of businesses engaged in farming or food and drink manufacturing in the UK.

Most provisions in the Genetic Technology Act won’t come into effect for several years because so much of the detail has been left to secondary legislation. There’s also still a chance for achieving one of our key demands as the Food Standards Agency’s independent board recently chose not to rule out some form of labelling for “precision bred food and feed”.

With opinion polls strongly suggesting a change of government at the next General Election,  it is tempting to conclude that there is little incentive for the current administration to concern itself with how the changes will work on the ground. Look a little more closely and you might wonder if their decision to push ahead with legislative changes that had been overwhelming rejected in Defra’s own public consultation was always really about sending signals. A signal to business investors that the Government has their back when it comes to patented technologies. A signal to the UK’s devolved nations that the they won’t be ‘getting their own countries back’ anytime soon. And a signal to civil society that we should know our place. 

We do, of course, absolutely know where are place should be: at the heart of public policy development! The Civil Society Alliance gives us a louder collective voice and GM Freeze is keen to play our part by sharing what we have learnt from fighting a deeply flawed – and hugely unpopular – bill. We didn’t win much but we have a learnt a huge amount along the way and want to put that experience to work as an ally of others defending public rights, standards and protections in any field. Please get in touch to discuss how we might be able to support your work by sharing some of the lessons we’ve learnt the hard way.

Liz O’Neill, Director of GM Freeze, 26 June, 2023

Civil Society Alliance urges government to accept REUL bill amendments at ping pong

Today the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) bill returns to the House of Lords for further consideration. This follows the government’s rejection of key Lords’ amendments in the House of Commons on 24 May 2023.

The Civil Society Alliance is one of many signatories to a letter urging the goverment to accept the revised amendments being tabled today. The amendments proposed by crossbenchers Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Hope of Craighead would offer parliament more of a say over potential changes to important laws. The proposed amendment from Lord Krebs would help demonstrate the government’s commitment to the environment by adding a safeguard for existing protections.

As it stands, the bill would allow future ministers, of this government or the next, to change or remove vital protections for consumers, workers or the environment with extremely limited parliamentary or public scrutiny. It is an unprecedented shift from parliamentary sovereignty to the Executive - which undermines the UK’s democracy, constitution and the role of devolved and central Parliaments.

Dear Secretary of State ---- civil society speaks out about the REUL bill

Rt Hon Kemi Badenoch

Secretary of State for Business and Trade

1 Victoria Street

London SW1H 0ET

17 May 2023

Dear Secretary of State

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

We write as the Civil Society Alliance representing the views of over 50 civil society groups from across the UK. We welcome the UK Government’s announcement that it intends to reform REUL, rather than automatically revoke all of it at the end of 2023.  The reform of REUL should be an excellent opportunity to strengthen our laws and protections. This letter sets out some of our key concerns to ensure that our rights and standards are not lost or watered down but strengthened.

Ensure that we maintain and enhance a high standards UK

A core objective of the Civil Society Alliance is for a high standards UK, a vision shared in the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto, including in relation to workers’ rights, environmental protection, and consumer rights. 

The powers included in the bill to reform REUL, particularly those in clause 16, will continue to create regulatory uncertainty. Well-designed regulation that benefits the economy and ensures fair competition is essential for building public trust, particularly given the rapid acceleration of technological change. Clause 16.5 of the bill appears to do the opposite by precluding the raising of standards in future that would ‘increase the regulatory burden.’

Continue to publish and consult on rationale and plans for REUL

Whilst we welcome the removal of the current sunset in the bill, we would like to understand the decision-making process used to identify the 587 pieces of subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation to be scrapped and the underlying justification for their inclusion. 

The UK Government should demonstrate its commitment to transparency and a high standards UK by continuing to publish details of further aspects of REUL that it does not intend to retain, together with the rationale for this decision-making.  Civil society from across the UK should be given the opportunity to help inform the final decision-making through a public consultation. Civil society is best placed to provide the expertise needed on the ways in which different elements of REUL do or do not affect individuals and communities.

Safeguard proper scrutiny and civil society engagement

While the removal of the sunset is a step in the right direction, the bill will still undermine the UK’s democracy, constitution, and the role of the devolved and central parliaments by virtue of wide-ranging powers given to ministers to reform REUL. Rather than restoring control this bill is an unprecedented shift from parliamentary sovereignty to the Executive, who will be able to make changes to key protections and safeguards without proper scrutiny.

Respect devolution

While the extension of powers to make consequential or transitional and saving provisions on the devolved governments is a step in the right direction, we remain concerned about the bill’s impact at the devolved level. There is still no requirement placed on UK ministers to seek devolved consent when exercising the wide-ranging regulatory powers in the bill. As these are concurrent, this will give the UK Government relatively unchecked law-making powers in areas of devolved competence.

The new power to preserve legislation listed in the Schedule (Sunset of subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation) has a tight deadline set at 31 October 2023. This would mean laying regulations at the devolved level by the start of October at the latest.  In practice this will provide very little time for devolved authorities to consult and scrutinise the list and to take the steps necessary to preserve any REUL included in the schedule that intersects with devolved competencies.

Protect human rights commitments in Northern Ireland

By failing to define any screening process for legislation that is set to be removed the bill also creates the possibility that legislation critical to the fulfilment of the UK Government's 'Article 2' human rights commitments in the Windsor Framework could be lost. While the bill creates new powers for devolved ministers to preserve certain laws up for removal, the lack of a functioning Northern Ireland Executive will leave the process of ensuring Article 2 compliance more difficult, with no ministers in place to preserve important legislation. 

We would value the opportunity to meet with you and your department to share civil society knowledge and expertise to ensure we have both effective regulation and high standards in the UK.

Yours sincerely

Rosalind Stevens, Project Manager, The Civil Society Alliance

Charles Whitmore, Wales Civil Society Forum coordinator.

Kit Stoner, Chief Executive, Bat Conservation Trust

Maggie Lennon, Director, Bridges Programmes

BRACE Committee, Building Resistance Against the Climate Emergency (BRACE)

Ruth Harding, Clerk, Cardiff Quaker Meeting

Sam Smith, CEO, C-Change

Joanne Welch, Founder, CEDAWinLAW

Colin Lee, Chief Executive, CEMVO Scotland

Megan McDermott, Project Officer, Centre for Cross Border Studies

Jules Wagstaff, Climate and Community

Sam Ward, Head, Climate Cymru

Jill Gough, Director, CND Cymru

Committee, Coal Action Network (CAN)

Grant Peisley, Director, Datblygiadau Egni Gwledig (DEG)

Cat Murphy, Executive Director, Engender Scotland

Benji Brown, Policy Officer, Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland

Liz Shannon, Parliamentary & Policy Adviser, Equally Ours

Lesley Punter, Political Engagement, Extinction Rebellion Cymru

Liz O’Neill, Director, GM Freeze

Vicky Moller, Grwp Resilience

Irene Oldfather, Director of Strategy, Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland (the ALLIANCE)

Danielle Roberts, Senior Policy and Development Officer, Here NI

Kevin Hanratty, Director, Human Rights Consortium

Mhairi Snowden, Director, Human Rights Consortium Scotland

Leo Starrs-Cunningham, Convenor, Inclusion Scotland

Helen Flynn, Head of Policy, Just Fair

Hannah Harvey, Limitless Energy

David Williams, Board Member, Llais y Goedwig

Kendall Bousquet, Advocacy Officer, Migrant Centre NI

Sarah Vibert, Chief Executive, NCVO

Sarah Thomas, Public Affairs Officer, National Federation of Women’s Institutes, Wales

Geoff Nuttall, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, NICVA

Prof. Robert Moore, North Wales Regional Equality Network

Marion Davis, Head of Policy, One Parent Families, Scotland

Josie Cohen, Head of Policy, Pesticide Action Network (PAN)

Amy Healey, Pesticide Collaboration

Shameem Ahmad, CEO, Public Law Project

Anna Fowlie, Chief Executive, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO)

Stuart Callison, Chief Executive, St Andrew's First Aid

Sarah Thomas, Secretariat, Stop Climate Chaos Cymru

Margaret Minhinnick, Director, Sustainable Wales

Suzanne Iuppa, Director, The Co-production Network for Wales

Dr Neil Lewis, Director, TrydaNi

Phoebe Clay & Emma Rose, Co-Directors, Unchecked

Tom Brake, Director, Unlock Democracy

Revd Canon Carol Wardman, Chair, Wales & Europe Working Party of Cytûn

Karen Whitfield, Co-Director, Wales Environment Link

Rob McDowall, CEO, Welfare Scotland

Charles Whitmore, Wales Civil Society Forum coordinator, WCVA

Jessica Laimann, WEN Wales (Women's Equality Network Wales)

Cofion Cynnes, Director, West Wales Climate Coalition

Jonna Monaghan, Director, Women’s Platform

Jerry Langford, Public Affairs Manager, The Woodland Trust

Civil society speaks out about the REUL Bill

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is the mechanism for implementing the government’s promised ‘Brexit Benefits Bill’. Its potential implications for civil society are huge for all of us who want to see a high standards UK with protection of rights in law.

This Civil Society Alliance webinar, held on 5 April 2023, provided an accessible snapshot about what is in the Bill and why it matters. See the presentation slides and the audio recordings below.

If you have any questions/comments on the presentations please contact us at info@civilsocietyalliance.uk

Delivering a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland

Human Rights Consortium is calling on the UK Government to deliver the outstanding human rights commitments made a quarter of a century ago in the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement and to protect the rights of people across the United Kingdom. 

The main undelivered commitment is a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. A Bill of rights could ensure additional protections for people across a range of rights such as adequate healthcare, access to education and decent housing. This would provide a safety net that everyone in society could rely on to ensure that their rights are protected when things go wrong.

The signatories to the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement committed themselves to ‘the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.’ 

HRC invites you to sign their petition to #MakeOurFutureFair.

Claiming Restitution: Age, Pensions and women born in the 1950s

French changes to pensions, increasing age of accrual from 62 to 64 and creating a single, universal system earning pension points with each day worked, are argued to favour women – yet this is not so clear. What is clear is that French workers – women and men – have taken to the streets protesting against the changes. The contrast with the French response and the response when the Pensions Act 1995 passed through Westminster is stark: no demonstrations back in 1995, because (unlike the situation in France) those impacted had no notice.

When Westminster changed the law existing since the 1940s, bringing women’s pension age up from 60 to 65 (the age men gained the pension), women were not told. Had they been, demonstrations by women (and male supporters) now taking place would have happened 28 years ago.

The Pensions Act 1995 targeted 1950s-born women in making the change. The then Secretary of Work and Pensions, Peter Lilley, in his Second Reading Speech specifically excluded 1940s women from the change, and targeted 1950s women. The 4th Schedule to the Act set out a time-based plan based on women’s birthdates through that decade. The Schedule showed some women receiving the pension on their birthdate, though later than 60, whilst for others the pension was to be paid later than 60, and not on their birthday.  

When at last notifications began to trickle through, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) realising – although minimally – its obligation to let those impacted know, 1950s women organised. BackTo60 (claiming full restitution, not a return to the 60-years pension) launched a judicial review action that ran through the High Court to the Court of Appeal, ending in the Supreme Court. The High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed the claims, asserting that men were discriminated against, not women. This ignored the straightforward principle of ‘less favourable treatment’ on a protected characteristic or ground, whether looking to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), or the 2010 Equality Act. Age and sex are protected characteristics. Targeting 1950s women to bear the brunt of the transition to 65 years meant they were subjected to less favourable treatment than men. Nothing changed for men: having planned their employment and retirement plans for their 65th birthday, unlike 1950s women they did not have to rearrange anything. The women had to rearrange their whole work-life and retirement plans. As to age, singling 1950s women out because they were born in that decade meant less favourable treatment on grounds of age: their date of birth meant, again, they had to rearrange retirement plans and stay on at work or beg for a job – not easy for anyone at an older age, and particularly not for women

The Supreme Court said the claim was ‘out of time’, without stating why. Yet as decisions susceptible to review are made each time the DWP electronically or manually calculates pensions according to age, the ‘delay’ contention is not sustainable and, in any event, was made without any argument or reasons. This, despite both the High Court and Court of Appeal having granted leave to appeal on all grounds in the claim – meaning that both considered there to be an arguable case.

BackTo60 is now lobbying MPs to support 1950s women’s claims through an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process. The terms of the resolution sought by BackTo60 in respect of all 3.9m women affected, are: an initial lump sum plus additional payments atop the State Pension paid over five years for those whose National Insurance Contributions (NICs) entitle them to compensation calculated according to monies forgone; no tax;  free dental and optician care;  and a named beneficiary should the 1950s woman die during the five-year period. Schedule 4 (and an amendment in the 2007 Pensions Act) shows some 1950s women owed several months restitution, whilst others would require calculation in years. The contention that the money ‘isn’t there’ ignores the women’s having paid in on the basis that their payments would ‘go’ to workers retiring at that time, and subsequent payments in would provide the moneys for their pensions.

In this pensions (lack of) pay-out debacle, 1950s women’s efforts indicate that the 1995 Conservative government and subsequent governments, in failing to redress 1950s women, have not only overlooked the women’s just claims. They have failed to understand that 1950s women cannot be treated with contempt. 1950s women matter, and refuse to go quietly.

Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt

Barrister and Human Rights Lawyer

 jas © 30 March 2023

CALL FOR ACTION

Call upon MPs to join Sir George Howarth's #ADRnow

https://twitter.com/2020Comms/status/1641014398088097792?t=svVR5Z68HSGmROWT2B7cVQ&s=19

The articles within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide the foundation for all civil society engagement.

Civil Society Alliance members welcomed Mia Hasenson-Gross, Réné Cassin at our drop in session on 8 February 2023.

René Cassin was a French-Jewish jurist, law professor and judge. He co-drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which the UK is a signatory, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1968. You can read his 1968 Nobel speech here.

The René Cassin charity’s small, proactive team campaigns for change in defined human rights areas – through a combination of advocacy, policy analysis, public campaigning and education. They help building the capacity of activists to promote and protect human rights, including through their successful Human Rights Ambassador programme. René Cassin’s voice is one of authority and credibility, drawing on experience to compare historical with contemporary events.

Rene Cassin works to protect and promote the rights of vulnerable individuals and communities – particularly on issues that resonate with the Jewish experience. These include:

1. Hostile Environments – treatment of immigrants, asylum seekers, modern slavery, exploitation of minorities, unlimited detention and safety issues. This can be within the UK or internationally.

2. Discrimination and hate – promoting and supporting solidarity with Travellers, Roma, women refugees and asylum seekers, Uyghurs. Mia highlighted a little-known fact that the worst levels of hate crime in the UK are towards disabled people.

3. Women’s Rights – across the world women face increased domestic violence, unpaid care duties and high rates of unemployment. Although women make up the majority of front-line workers, they are underrepresented in national and global policy-making spaces

4. Socio-economic Rights – Article 25 of UDHR is pertinent here. Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, nearly 8.4 million adults and children living in the UK struggle to access the food they need.

2023 marks the 75th Anniversary of the UDHR. Article 30 alludes to rights not to suffer acts of aggression - like invasion, attack, and occupation. On the eve of the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, Rene Cassin and the Coalition for Genocide Response are hosting an online event on 23 February, when two legal experts will explain how Putin can be held to account. Sign up for the event here.

Civil Society Alliance REUL Briefing to Peers

The 2nd reading of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill has its second reading in the House of Lords on Monday 6 February 2023.

The REUL Bill goes to the heart of the UK’s democracy and constitution. It represents a fundamental reconsideration of parliamentary sovereignty that gives the Executive sweeping powers to make changes to existing legislation without detailed scrutiny of Parliament. As advocates for a strong civil society voice in developing collaborative, consistent, open, effective, and accountable governance, the Civil Society Alliance has written to Peers to highlight our concerns about this Bill. Read our briefing here

EESC report sets out civil society views on the implementation of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement

Today the EESC Follow up Committee published their report on the state of implementation of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, as perceived by UK Civil Society Organisations (CSO)and other relevant stakeholders. The purpose of the information report is to contribute to the political dialogue between the EU and the UK by providing reflections from CSOs and other stakeholders on their future relationship.

The EU-UK Follow-up Committee was set up in March 2021 for the purpose of maintaining and strengthening relations between EU and UK CSOs, and monitoring the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. In addition to the economic implications, challenges regarding the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (Protocol) have been particularly complex and politically sensitive.

To keep abreast of developments on the ground the Committee has relied on contacts with UK-based civil society organisations and associations. For example, many of our members participated in the Committee’s fact finding mission to Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London last October.

The findings of the mission clearly demonstrate an overwhelming desire across UK CSOs for a deeper, more cooperative, constructive relationship between the UK and the EU, which would optimise the potential of the WA and TCA.

The Civil Society Alliance welcomes this valuable report and looks forward to working together to broaden our outreach to wider civil society and our social partners to achieve those aims.

See Twitter thread

Challenges facing civil society when engaging in the legislative process

A new report from the Institute for Government/Bennett Institute for Public Policy, published today, looks at the practical and procedural barriers that prevent Parliament from effectively fulfilling its constitutional role to scrutinise, amend and approve legislation. Recent trends – including the fast-tracking of legislation and increased use of secondary legislation – have led to less not more scrutiny. The report argues that Parliament needs to be empowered to be better able to challenge government bills.
Civil Society Alliance members participated in a roundtable as part of the research for the report. We explored the challenges facing civil society when engaging in the complex and inaccessible legislative process and considered ways to overcome the barriers we face.

The report’s recommendations include:

• A requirement on the government to publish all bills in draft form (with a waiver for urgent or emergency legislation) with a a ‘menu’ of options for pre-legislative scrutiny to allow flexibility within the process and prevent adding significant additional time to a bill’s timetable in all case

• Giving Commons select committees the opportunity to request pre-legislative scrutiny on any bills in their departmental remit

• Allowing select committees to request a ‘select committee’ stage on all government bills, so creating the opportunity to take evidence and set out its view on the bill.

• The House of Commons Commission should review of the resources available for members to support legislative scrutiny, including expert policy and legal resources.

• There should be a dedicated parliamentary clerk with responsibility for advising civil society and third-sector groups on procedural matters and how to engage with the legislative process and the passage of specific bills that have been announced in the King’s Speech in each session.
  

  If you want to find out more about the report’s findings and what it means for civil society, please join us at our next drop in session on Zoom on Wednesday 14 December, 2022 at 2.00 pm. To register please email info@civilsocietyalliance.uk

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform Bill: Evidence to Public Bill Committee

The Public Bill Committee met for the first time on 8 November 2022 to hear oral evidence on all aspects of the Bill. The Civil Society Alliance has submitted written evidence, which reflects many of the concerns raised about the Bill in that session. These include the risk of:

• significant legal and regulatory uncertainty;

• further destabilisation of the devolution arrangements;

• undermining the UK’s democracy and constitution and the role of devolved and central parliaments.

  missing out on the promised Brexit Benefit opportunities by removing or weakening, rather than raising rights and regulatory standards;

• distorting the level playing field in the TCA between the UK and EU to safeguard fair competition and protect workers, businesses and citizens.

• frustrating efforts to reach a constructive solution with the EU around the Northern Ireland Protocol.

The Committee will begin line by line scrutiny of the Bill on 22 November, with further sessions planned for 24 and 29 November, when the proceedings will conclude.

Please let us have your thoughts and suggestions for amendments you would like us to pursue. You can contact us by email at info@civilsocietyalliance.uk

Retained EU Law (Revocation & Reform) Bill - Rapid Response Webinar

The Retained EU Law (Revocation & Reform) Bill, (“Brexit Freedoms Bill”), was introduced in Parliament on 22 September 2022. This Framework Bill ends the special status of all retained EU law by 31 December 2023. It is anticipated that the Second Reading of the Bill will take place in the week commencing 24 October 2022.

On Wednesday 10 October 2022, the Civil Society Alliance hosted a webinar for civil society organisations and the general public to explore the implications of the Bill for existing rights and standards. There are serious concerns around the extensive powers the Bill, with limited consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny.

Our panel of experts shared their initial reactions and analysis of the Bill and you can watch the recording here.

Professor David Phinnemore, Queens University Belfast, explained the complexities of the Bill; the challenge to identify the EU legislation subject to its provisions; the arbitrary deadlines for sunset; the administrative burdens on Government departments; and the legal loopholes that are likely to ensue.
Ruth Chambers, Green Alliance highlighted the environmental protections at threat including around radioactivity in waste, pesticides in food, harm to wildlife, food and water supply.
Marley Morris, Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) addressed the potential impact of the Bill on workers’ rights and what that might mean for the non-regression clauses in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).
Sam Willis, Public Law Project went through the detail of the Bill, highlighting examples of particular concern and exploring options for amendments.

Next steps
The Civil Society Alliance is working in partnership with our members and representatives from across civic society.
We would like to continue to provide regular updates on the progress of the Bill and welcome offers from speakers who would like to share their knowledge and expertise with our members. Please get in touch if you are able to help info@civilsocietyalliance.uk.

Impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland

Following the recent invitation to submit evidence to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee, Civil Society Alliance members were keen to highlight the importance of gathering civil society views on the socio-economic and political impacts of the Protocol.  In particular, members expressed the need to highlight the potential effects of any actions taken in relation to the Protocol, including the links between Westminster and Northern Ireland institutions, especially if the Assembly is prevented from sitting longer term.

In our submission to the Committee, we called for engagement to be opened up to a broader forum,  ensuring that a wider range of civil society groups have ample opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way. We also stressed the necessity for the Government’s current review of EU retained law to take account of the impact on Northern Ireland.

On 11 August 2022, the Committee published their follow up report highlighting the “urgent imperative for all sides to make concerted efforts to build trust by recommitting themselves to that process of dialogue, repairing the damage caused to relations across these islands during the past five years, in the interests, as the Protocol rightly acknowledges, of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland.” (Paragraph 299).

Impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland

Following the recent invitation to submit evidence to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee, Civil Society Alliance members were keen to highlight the importance of gathering civil society views on the socio-economic and political impacts of the Protocol.  In particular, members expressed the need to highlight the potential effects of any actions taken in relation to the Protocol, including the links between Westminster and Northern Ireland institutions, especially if the Assembly is prevented from sitting longer term.

In our submission to the Committee, (here) we called for engagement to be opened up to a broader forum,  ensuring that a wider range of civil society groups have ample opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way. We also stressed the necessity for the Government’s current review of EU retained law to take account of the impact on Northern Ireland.

On 11 August 2022, the Committee published their follow up report highlighting the “urgent imperative for all sides to make concerted efforts to build trust by recommitting themselves to that process of dialogue, repairing the damage caused to relations across these islands during the past five years, in the interests, as the Protocol rightly acknowledges, of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland.” (Paragraph 299).

The Queen’s Speech & Protecting Rights

UK Government plans - as set out in the Queen's Speech - will impact rights.

Join this expert webinar on Wednesday 25th of May from 13:15 – 14:00 to find out more.

This webinar is aimed at giving you short, insightful reflections on some of the BIG UK Government plans to keep an eye on.

Whether it's the upcoming 'Bill of Rights', or new law on data, or law on procurement, or the Brexit Freedoms Bill or....

Join this panel webinar (while you eat your lunch?) to find out about the key issues that are ahead for your organisation to be informed about, & to get involved in.

The webinar will be chaired by Mhairi Snowden, Director of Human Rights Consortium Scotland, and speakers will include:

• Catherine Barnard, Deputy Director of UK in a Changing Europe

• Charlie Whelton, Policy and Campaigns Officer, Liberty

• Kevin Hanratty, Director, Human Rights Consortium in Northern Ireland

• Rosalind Stevens, Project Manager, Civil Society Alliance

Welcome to the Civil Society Alliance

On Wednesday 16 March 2022, the Civil Society Alliance hosted an online event for potential members and stakeholders.

Charles Whitmore, Wales Civil Society Forum on Brexit,  mapped out the history of the project, building on the work of the Brexit Civil Society Alliance. He emphasised the shift from working on a single piece of legislation - the EU Withdrawal Bill - towards wider but very clearly articulated challenges and now towards a much less clear agenda for change. 

To help map out that agenda, Marley Morris of the Institute for Public Policy Research, considered what was needed to uphold  high standards for the UK and globally, including within the context of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the current reviews of EU retained laws.

Tom West from the Hansard Society  explained the importance of proper oversight and scrutiny of delegated legislation, outlining the objectives of the Hansard Society’s current review, to include proposals for root and branch reform. 

A full report of the event, including the speakers’ presentations, is available in the members area of the website.