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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

In this report on the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights says the Government should reconsider proposed changes to the pathway to British citizenship. Whilst the Bill does not change the underlying position of migrants' access to benefits, it extends the time it takes to get to applying for citizenship by a year. During this period a person given the new 'probationary citizenship' will be ineligible for 15 different types of benefit that are available to those with 'indefinite leave to remain'. The Committee is also concerned that the new rules may be applied retrospectively and urges the Government not to override the legitimate expectations of migrants already on the path to citizenship under the current rules. The Committee also has concerns about the proposed 'short cut' to citizenship, reducing the time it takes to naturalise can by two years if applicants participate in unpaid community activity. Tracking this activity risks infringing people's right to privacy, and the Committee is also concerned that the requirement risks penalising people who are unable to undertake such activities, because of disability or caring responsibilities or because they are already in paid full time work. The Committee welcomes the new positive duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the discharge of immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions and the reversal of the Government's previous policy of excluding children subject to immigration control from the protection of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In addition to the scrutiny of Bills and policy documents the Committee also examines other areas where there are concerns about human rights. In this report it looks at how the principles of human rights can be applied to older people in hospitals and care homes to ensure they are treated with greater dignity and respect. It looks first at the current position before covering: the leadership of the Department of Health; the implementation of the Human Rights Act by service providers; health and social care inspectorates and NICE; the role of staff in protecting human rights; and empowering older people. It finds that, although there are examples of excellent care, there are concerns about poor treatment, neglect, abuse, discrimination and ill-considered discharge. There is a significant difference between the "duty to provide" under care standards legislation and the "right to receive" under human rights legislation and the culture needs to change. The Committee recommends legislation and a role for the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. It also recommends measures to strengthen human rights obligations and duties, including better guidance and standards, and bringing private and voluntary care homes into the scope of the Human Rights Act.

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.