Terror laws 'clash with human rights'

13 April 2012

Charles Clarke's anti-terror laws were dealt a severe blow by a joint committee of MPs and peers today.

In a highly critical report, they said his emergency Bill was incompatible with human rights laws and accused the Home Secretary of using "eccentric" claims to advance his case.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights said his plans were almost certain to be challenged in court as unlawful.

It called for the most controversial powers - house arrest without trial - to be dropped from the Bill.

But Mr Clarke showed no signs of giving in today, despite a rebellion by 32 Labour MPs and opposition from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

He is expected to make one major concession on Monday, when the Bill is next debated, by requiring a judge to be consulted immediately if a suspect is put under house arrest.

But sources close to the Home Secretary said he would not agree to the demands made by the committee.

That makes a major clash a certainty when MPs and peers vote next week.

The Prime Minister defended the anti-terror measures at his monthly news conference in

the powers could be needed at the drop of a hat to stop a terrorist outrage similar to the Madrid bombing.

Mr Blair said the police and security services were adamant about the need for measures to frustrate terrorists who could not be prosecuted but who were too dangerous merely to keep under surveillance.

"If the police and security services say that to me, what should any Prime Minister do? The answer is they should act on it," he said.

He hinted at Monday's expected compromise, saying Labour backbenchers and to other parties.

The joint committee is made up of MPs and peers who scrutinise Bills for powers that would conflict with European human rights legislation. It concluded:

House arrest should be taken out of the Bill and reintroduced after the general election when there is more time to debate it. The report said: "Legislation passed at such speed should be confined to that which is essential to deal with problems about to arise." It said Mr Clarke had already conceded that he did not need to use house arrest at present, so there was no need to ram the powers through Parliament.
Judges should be involved before a suspect's liberty is taken away. At present the Bill says judges would be called in within a week, although Mr Clarke is expected to shorten this to a day. The report said: "It is a long-established principle of the British constitution that the executive has no power to detain individuals without prior judicial authorisation." Mr Clarke's claim that he, and not the courts, were responsible for national security, is an "eccentric interpretation of the constitutional doctrine of the separation of power", the committee said.
More mild forms of control orders were likely to conflict with human rights laws and could therefore be overturned. They could breach the rights for respect to family life and privacy, the right to freedom of expression and association.

Mr Clarke's Bill would give him powers to impose control orders ranging from electronic tagging to travel curbs and banning suspects from using the telephone. A source close to the minister rejected the committee's findings, saying: "We are satisfied the Bill is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights."

MORE ABOUT

Human Rights

Law