Human Rights (Joint Committee)

The committee scrutinised the Minister for Children and Families and DfE officials on how human rights are embedded in children’s social care, with repeated focus on kinship care, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, illegal accommodation, supported accommodation, regional care co-operatives, complaints and advocacy, criminalisation of care-experienced children, disability support, the care cliff at 18, and forced adoption. The Minister’s main line was that the Government believes children’s rights are already incorporated into domestic law through existing legislation, and that the priority is reforming the system’s design, funding and inspection rather than creating new standalone rights legislation. He committed to further information on illegal accommodation figures, said the Government is actively considering an apology on forced adoption, and announced or confirmed forthcoming action on enduring relationships, while Helen Waite set out current programme delivery, inspections, and reviews.

The committee examined the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill with a focus on the Legacy Commission’s powers, independence, and oversight; the dual-track mechanism (coronial inquests vs. inquisitorial proceedings); national-security disclosure controls; and the funding and cross-border implications. Key government commitments emerged: (1) amendments will be published before Committee stage; (2) a carryover Motion will be laid before the session ends; (3) the remedial order will not be progressed until the Dillon judgment or House of Lords confidence is established; (4) greater openness is sought within national-security constraints; and (5) ongoing cross-border cooperation with Ireland including funding promises. Policy tensions surfaced around: independence and appointment processes for the Legacy Commission; the scope of “close family member” for investigations under Article 2 ECHR; the five-year time limit for new investigations; immunities vs prosecutorial accountability; and adequate funding for the PSNI and other actors. The Special Rapporteur’s tenets for consideration were acknowledged, with a commitment to respond formally.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights examined the value and limits of protest, the balance between individual rights and public-order policing, and the complexity of current legislation. Witnesses from civil society (Quakers, Liberty) and legal academia framed protest as a democratic right and a safety valve, while warning of a chilling effect from recent laws and inconsistencies in enforcement. Police-focused witnesses stressed the need for operational safeguards, advance notice for events, and a consolidation of public-order laws to reduce confusion and uneven policing across forces. The session highlighted no explicit government commitments, but produced clear positions on the value of protest, proportionality in policing, calls for legal consolidation, and a reluctance to endorse a new stand-alone protest-right in statute.

This session scrutinised the human rights of children in England’s social care system, focusing on Ofsted’s regulatory/inspection role, the adequacy and locations of children’s homes, and the integrity of the market. Witnesses highlighted gaps in accommodation capacity (growth in homes outpacing places), the prevalence of private-sector provision, and the need for policy reform (including civil-penalty powers, national eligibility criteria for disabled children, and fuller incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). The committee explored complaints mechanisms, safeguards in the secure estate, kinship care, leaving-care support, and the broader systemic embedding of human rights across social work, education and health. Government commitments identified include readiness to implement civil-penalty powers once legislation is enacted, improvement plans for illegal/unregistered homes, and ongoing regulation reforms via the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and related policy work.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutinised how AI intersects with human rights, with two evidence sessions on 25 February 2026. Evidence 1 heard Meta and Microsoft executives outline their approach to responsible AI, transparency, and regulation, emphasising a risk-based, proportionate framework, the UK’s AI Opportunities Plan, and the UK AI Security Institute as a governance anchor, alongside discussion of age-restrictions, content provenance, watermarking, and accountability across model developers, deployers and platforms. Evidence 2 featured the Government’s Minister for AI, Kanishka Narayan, detailing upstream risk management, capability-building via the AI Security Institute, Regulatory Innovation Office and AI Growth Lab, and cross-government ethics standards; commitments to ratify the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI; legislative steps including the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and the National Data Library with privacy and bias safeguards; and the Sovereign AI Unit with an Advanced Market Commitment to anchor UK capabilities. The discussion also highlighted concerns about regulatory fragmentation, calls for global harmonisation, and the need for robust redress mechanisms across privacy, online safety and employment regimes.”,

This hearing examined two distinct but high-salience policy streams. First, AI governance and human rights, with Ofcom, ICO and EHRC detailing regulators’ roles, capabilities and gaps in regulating AI, including data-protection bases, privacy-by-design, and regulatory tools (sandboxes, age assurance). They highlighted pace of technological change as the core challenge, resource constraints (notably EHRC’s funding), and potential evolutions in powers (e.g., under the Data (Use and Access) Act) and cross-regulator coordination (DRCF). They also debated whether a dedicated AI regulator is needed and how existing laws (GDPR, Equality/HR Acts, Online Safety Act) apply to AI by private actors and in online safety contexts. Second, the Chagos/UK-Mauritius treaty on the Chagos Archipelago, where Parliament’s Joint Committee heard UN CERD and ICJ material, including to what extent self-determination, return rights and cultural rights apply. Witnesses argued about participation/consent (FPIC) in negotiations, annexe 1 provisions that limit resettlement, and the need for meaningful Chagossian involvement, reparations, and a joint declaration clarifying that resettlement cannot be blocked by the treaty. The government-facing commitments surfaced include upcoming central code development for AI automated decision-making, potential use of Data Use and Access Act powers, and ratification discussions around the Council of Europe framework convention. For Chagos, the debate yielded recommendations around ensuring consultation, mediation, possible reparations, and stronger assurances that rights of return and cultural rights are respected in practice.