Terrorism (Detention and Human Rights)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comment, because that was the view that we, too, were led to believe. I hope that that position has not changed and that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm both that the rumours that have been flying around are not true and that the Government will allow proper scrutiny of all aspects of counter-terrorism legislation as a piece. I hope, too, that they will debate with us ideas that our Select Committees and other parties put forward. My Committee intends to scrutinise any legislation or draft legislation for its human rights implications, even if formal pre-legislative scrutiny is undertaken by another Committee, including under the new Public Bill Committee procedure. We are concerned to ensure that even if the new legislation goes through under the Public Bill Committee procedure, that does not exclude either the Home Affairs Committee or my Committee from doing the proper job that we are appointed by Parliament to do. Apart from time, the other main factor affecting our scrutiny of Government proposals is the adequacy of the evidence and information that are provided. One of the judgments that we on the Joint Committee on Human Rights are continually called on to make is whether proposed measures are proportionate to their objectives. In other words, when considering counter-terrorism proposals, we have to judge whether the inevitable interferences with individuals’ rights and the impact on human rights law and standards go only so far as is necessary to meet the specified purposes set out in the European convention, such as the interests of national security. We also need to consider whether proposed measures meet the conditions set out in the convention, such as those under which persons may be lawfully detained, under article 5. In the absence of more detailed information on the precise nature and level of the threat from terrorism or on the threat posed by individuals, such as those subject to control orders, that is an exceedingly difficult judgment for us to make, so as to inform Parliament about the human rights compatibility of proposed legislation and policy. We recognize the important work that has been carried out by Lord Carlile, who is the independent reviewer, and by the Intelligence and Security Committee. However, we consider that neither provides the degree of parliamentary involvement that is necessary to provide the basis for informed debate and decisions by Parliament on counter-terrorism legislation and policy. In our report, we called for more direct parliamentary accountability. We said that the concept of an arms-length monitoring body, charged with oversight of the security and intelligence agencies, independent of the Government and those agencies, and reporting directly to Parliament, was worthy of consideration. The Government rejected that recommendation. They also rejected the Home Affairs Committee suggestion, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen repeated, that an independent committee could be established to review the maximum detention period annually. I would urge the Minister to reflect further on those points.