Seventeenth report of Session 2009-10 : Documents considered by the Committee on 30 March 2010, report, together with formal Minutes

The Joint Committee on Human Rights calls for a fundamental, independent review of the necessity for and proportionality of all counter-terrorism measures adopted since September 11 2001. It questions the way that the policy imperatives of national security and public safety have been used to justify squeezing out human rights considerations. Since September 11 2001, the Government has continuously claimed that there is a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation". The Committee questions whether the country has really been in this state for over eight years. A permanent state of emergency skews public debate about the justification for rights-limiting counter-terrorism measures. It is unacceptable that the Director General of the Security Service refuses to appear before it to give public evidence - despite giving public lectures and media interviews. The Committee finds the Government's narrow definition of complicity in torture significant and worrying and calls for an urgent independent inquiry into the allegations of complicity in torture. The Government should drop the draft bill still being held in reserve to allow pre-charge detention to be extended to 42 days. And more work should be done on measures - such as bail and the use of intercept evidence - that could reduce the use of pre-charge detention. The Intelligence and Security Committee should become a proper Parliamentary committee with an independent secretariat and legal advice and appointing an independent reviewer of counter-terror legislation who reports directly to Parliament not the Government.

A report that provides an overview of the Committee's work during the 2008-09 parliamentary session and draws attention to improvements to the human rights landscape in the UK which it has commended in reports during the year. It also mentions a number of continuing areas for concern.

On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees

Seventeenth report of Session 2010-11 : Documents considered by the Committee on 2 February 2011, including the following recommendations for debate, contractual relations in the milk sector; sexual abuse and exploitation of children and child pornography

The last three decades have seen the evolution of Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) and Relationship Contracting (RC) as alternative procurement approaches to traditional methods of delivering public infrastructure. The potential for growth in these new forms of procurement has led to an on-going debate on the nature of requirements, particularly in terms of policy development, encouraging private investment and value for money. A key argument for Governments to procure projects using PPPs and RC is that the process delivers better value for all the stakeholders, including the community and asset end-users. This wide-ranging study of such crucial procurement issues includes international historical context, collaboration and risk management, with a focus on sustainable procurement approaches. The international significance of PPPs and RC procurement is reinforced with case study examples from the UK, Europe, North America, South Africa and the Asia-Pacific. It features cutting-edge research from around the world on subjects such as: Reviews and reflection of the PPP approach Project Alliancing Implementation of RC in developing countries Changes in procurement policy Value for money, collaboration and stakeholder involvement Growth and emergence of PPPs in Asia Risk management Including contributions from some of the world's most prominent academics and practitioners in this field, it is a crucial guide to the strategic choices governments now face for the provision of infrastructure, between using ‘public’ or ‘private’ mechanisms, or a combination of the two.

Although there has been a lot written about how counter-terrorism laws impact on human rights and civil liberties, most of this work has focussed on the most obvious or egregious kinds of human rights abrogation, such as extended detention, torture, and extraordinary rendition. Far less has been written about the complex ways in which Western governments have placed new and far-reaching limitations on freedom of speech in this context since 9/11. This book compares three liberal democracies - the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, in particular showing the commonalities and similarities in what has occurred in each country, and the changes in the appropriate parameters of freedom of speech in the counter-terrorism context since 9/11, achieved both in policy change and the justification for that change. In all three countries much speech has been criminalized in ways that were considered anachronistic, or inappropriate, in comparable policy areas prior to 9/11. This is particularly interesting because other works have suggested that the United States' unique protection of freedom of speech in the First Amendment has prevented speech being limited in that country in ways that have been pursued in others. This book shows that this kind of argument misses the detail of the policy change that has occurred, and privileges a textual reading over a more comprehensive policy-based understanding of the changes that have occurred. The author argues that we are now living a new-normal for freedom of speech, within which restrictions on speech that once would have been considered aberrant, overreaching, and impermissible are now considered ordinary, necessary, and justified as long as they occur in the counter-terrorism context. This change is persistent, and it has far reaching implications for the future of this foundational freedom.