27/03/17: UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

Posted onAuthorHumanRightsAPPG

The All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group (PHRG), with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the United Nations, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rule of Law, the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, held a joint roundtable discussion, on 27 March, to discuss the role of the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in assessing the UK’s human rights record, and that of other countries, and the role Parliamentarians can play in this process.

We would like to thank Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, Chair of the APPG Rule of Law and Joint Vice-Chair of the PHRG, for chairing this event.

The speakers were:

  • Natalie Samarasinghe – Executive Director, United Nations Association – UK (NS);
  • Rob Fenn – Head, Human Rights & Democracy Department, FCO (RF);
  • Scott McPherson – Director, Judicial, Rights and International Directorate, Ministry of Justice (SMP);
  • Melanie Field – Executive Director for Strategy and Policy, Equality and Human Rights Commission (MF). 

The main points which arose were as follows:

  • The UPR is the only international mechanism to regularly review each state’s human rights record. It is a peer review mechanism, which is more palatable way for states to put themselves up for scrutiny.  It enables civil society to engage on a limited basis and creates a dialogue.  It is believed that half of the UPR recommendations put forward have triggered some follow-up action. (NS)
  • The state-led nature of the UPR process makes it intensely political and this can dilute impact. There is also no enforcement mechanism to ensure recommendations adopted by each country are implemented. (NS)
  • The UK has submitted its mid-term progress reports and also taken part in all other states’ UPRs.  The UK has asked for more concise and fewer recommendations. (NS)
  • Protecting civil society from reprisals after they participate in the UPR process is also important, and practical things could be done. (NS)
  • The rules-based international system is the level playing field all states need, and support for the UPR process is a key component of this. (RF)
  • The UK is committed to improving follow-up on the implementation of UPR recommendations. There should be a focus on technical assistance; the UPR Trust Fund is in place to help effect implementation. (RF)
  • In preparing for the UK’s third UPR, the Government wanted input from as many external stakeholders as possible. The stakeholders clearly signalled some key issues: implementation of the Equality Act 2010; treatment of detainees; treatment of older people and people with disabilities; hate crimes. (SMP)
  • Minister Oliver Heald MP will be representing the UK at the dialogue on 4 May, where the UK is expected to receive over 100 recommendations. The UN will be updated on the top 5 recommendations in 2018. (SMP)
  • The UPR can be about good practice and bad practice, so it is very important for the UK to lead by example. (MF)
  • Parliament has a vital role in scrutiny and oversight, particularly in connection with the implementation of UPR recommendations. The UPR has scope for MPs to define how they will participate in the process; the UK, however, has yet to establish a process for MP engagement. (MF)
  • The EHRC has 30 recommendations in its shadow report; its priority is the issue of access to justice, especially civil, e.g., employment tribunals.  The EHRC was pleased that the JCHR will be holding an evidence session before the UK delegation goes to Geneva. It is hoped the JCHR will continue engaging on the UPR. (MF)
  • There are no plans to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights. (SMP)
  • The UK is interested in hearing about what other states do as regards national cross-departmental UPR implementation structures. (SMP & RF)

The PHRG will continue to urge states to engage constructively with the UPR process, including to enable the meaningful participation of civil society (without fear of reprisals) and to ensure the implementation of recommendations, and will raise related issues and concerns with relevant interlocutors.