Examines the Counter-Terrorism Bill before its second reading in the House of Commons. This title concentrates on five significant human rights issues needing thorough parliamentary scrutiny: pre-charge detention; post-charge questioning; control orders and special advocates; the threshold test for charging; and the admissibility of intercept.

Copies are supplied by TSO's On-demand publishing section

Presents a report on aspects of the Government's counter-terrorism strategy since the 2005 election. This book draws attention to criticisms of the UK's counter-terrorism law and policy in various reports by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the UN Human Rights Committee. HC 1077.

The main purpose of this Report is to comment on the adequacy of the additional safeguards which the Government has indicated it intends to bring forward to meet the human rights concerns about its proposal to extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 42 days. The report explains the Committee's conclusion that the additional safeguards are inadequate to protect individuals against the risk of arbitrary detention. The Committee recommends that the Government provide Parliament with the evidence on which it relies when it says that the threat from terrorism is growing. It also calls for information about the use made of the extended power to detain without charge for up to 28 days since it was last renewed in July 2007. No amount of additional parliamentary or judicial safeguards can render the proposal for a reserve power of 42 days' pre-charge detention compatible with the right of a terrorism suspect to be informed "promptly" of the charge against him under Article 5(2) ECHR. The Government has not included in the Counter-Terrorism Bill a provision to improve the existing arrangements for parliamentary review of the operation of extended pre-charge detention, and the report puts forward amendments to the Bill to improve such arrangements. In the Committee's view the recent examples of questionable information sharing by the intelligence services, which risk making the UK complicit in torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, show that there is a need for substantive legal safeguards to guarantee against the arbitrary and disproportionate use of the power to disclose and use such information. The Committee proposes amendments to strengthen safeguards.

On 30th January 2008 the Home Secretary laid before both Houses of Parliament a draft Order to renew the control order legislation, the third annual extension of the control order regime. The Government takes the view that no amendments to the legal framework are necessary. The Committee disagrees and considers it imperative for the Government to amend counter-terrorism laws where experience has shown them to lead to breaches of human rights. Amongst their recommendations are: ensurance of timely availability of Lord Carlile's annual report on the control orders; the need to strengthen the intrusive powers contained in the control orders; modification of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to impose a maximum daily limit 12 hours on the curfew which can be imposed; review of the fairness of the special advocate procedure and a need to take into account the Committee's own earlier recommendations concerning this; maintaining the preferred policy of priority of prosecution; and greater transparency of decisions that prosecution is not possible.

Counter-terrorism policy and human rights (sixteenth Report) : Annual renewal of control orders legislation 2010, ninth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written Evidence

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.

The Joint Committee scrutinised the Home Office's draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills, which could be enacted urgently if it ever became necessary to extend to 28 days the maximum period for which the police could apply to a High Court judge detain terrorist suspects before charging them. The Committee agrees with the Government's objective, but does not accept the Government's proposals for achieving the objective. When provisions of this kind needed to be introduced after individuals had been arrested; it would be almost impossible to give Parliament the information it would need to scrutinise the legislation adequately without putting at risk a suspect's right to have a fair trial. In addition there is a risk that, if the provision was required in a period of parliamentary recess or dissolution, legislation could not be introduced in time, or at all. The Committee recommends, instead, the introduction of legislation to empower the Secretary of State to make an executive order (with the agreement of the Attorney General and subject to rigorous safeguards), that would temporarily extend the maximum period available for pre-charge detention to 28 days. There would have to be an independent review of the case for making such an order. The Director of Public Prosecutions would continue to be responsible for applications to a High Court judge in individual cases. The Secretary of State would be accountable to Parliament for the decision once there was no longer any risk of prejudicing judicial proceedings.

The report opens with an affirmation that the British Government should protect the right to protest peacefully. It then discusses some concerns about policing of protest which could be addressed by legal and operational changes : -- 1. Reference to insulting words or behaviour should be removed from section 5 of the Public Order Act. This change would allow the police to arrest people for using threatening or abusive language or behaviour but not for using insulting language or behaviour; -- 2. Counter-terrorism powers should never be used against peaceful protestors : the Government's guidance on stop and search powers in Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 should make this clear' - 3. The Government should protect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly around Parliament by repealing the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Protest around Parliament should be governed by the Public Order Act 1986, which should be amended to deal with the specific circumstances of Parliament; -- 4. police and protestors need to focus on improving dialogue. The police should aim for 'no surprises' policing : no surprises for the police; no surprises for protestors; and no surprises for protest targets. Protestors should also, where possible, engage with the police at an early stage in their planning, in order to facilitate peaceful protest; Tasers should never be used against peaceful protestors.

This report from the Joint Committee of Human Rights (HLP 72/HCP 132, ISBN 9780104012468) examines issues surrounding data protection and human rights, particularly in relation to the recent loss of data by government departments. Personal data should be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act (PGA 1998 chp. 29, ISBN 9780105429982), whilst the Human Rights Act (PGA 1998 chp. 42, ISBN 9780105442981) safeguards the right to respect personal information. The Committee has expressed concern about the recent lapses in the protection of data in particular where the sharing of information takes place, and that such sharing needs to be justifiable and appropriate. The Committee fundamentally disagrees with the Government's approach about data protection and does not agree that the two Acts offer sufficient protection, and that further primary legislation is needed to make clear the importance of data protection inside and outside government. The Committee also states that the recent lapses are indicative of a symptomatic failure within government to safeguard personal data and that human rights are far from being a mainstream consideration in Government department's. The Committee states that Government needs to set out proposals to rectify this situation. The Committee supports the extension of the Information Commissioner's powers to defend human rights, but expresses regret that it has taken the loss of personal data affecting 25 million people for the Government to take the issue of personal data more seriously. For a related publication, see (HCP 154, session 2007-08, Protection of private data, ISBN 9780215037923).