The Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutinises Government Bills for their human rights compatibility. The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

This is the Committee's second Report on this Bill. The Committee has also published four other Reports relevant to the Bill. This Report updates them in light of the Government's replies to two of the Committee's Reports and puts forward amendments to the Bill to give effect to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's approach is based on the human rights standards with which the Government's counter-terrorism measures must be compatible and on the belief that such measures should as far as possible be part of the ordinary criminal law (paragraphs 1-5).

In the Committee's view the Government has not made out its case to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days. There is no clear evidence of any likely need for more than 28 days in the near future and there is an alternative, human rights-compliant package of measures available which means there is simply no need to extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention (paragraphs 6-8).

The Committee is very disappointed by the Government's failure to respond fully to its earlier substantial report on 42 days and looks forward to a response to its detailed recommendations in that Report (paragraphs 9-11).

The Committee considers the Government's argument that the Parliamentary safeguards surrounding pre-charge detention are substantial and meaningful but concludes that they confuse parliamentary and judicial functions by attempting to give Parliament the function of extending detention to deal with particular individuals. In view of what is now known about the former Attorney General's view of the previous 90 day proposal, the Committee is disappointed that the Law Officers were not even able to confirm that in their view the proposal to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days is compatible with and will not lead to breaches of the UK's international human rights obligations. The Committee concludes that as the case has not been made out the proposals for 42 days pre-charge detention should be deleted from the Bill. It suggests amendments to the Bill to strengthen the existing judicial safeguards in applications to extend pre-charge detention up to the current limit of 28 days to make them compatible with the right to a judicial hearing in Article 5(4) ECHR (paragraphs 12-36).

Charges for terrorism offences may be brought on the basis of reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed rather than the normal, higher threshold of a realistic prospect of conviction. The lowering of the charging threshold in terrorism cases therefore significantly reduces the force of the case for extending the maximum period of pre-charge detention. Although the Committee considers this lower Threshold Test in terrorist cases beneficial, it remains of the view that it should be scrutinised by Parliament and placed on a statutory footing with a number of independent safeguards. It proposes an amendment to the Bill to provide an opportunity for parliamentary debate (paragraphs 37-49).

Under the Terrorism Act 2000 there is no provision for bail prior to charge. In the Committee's view the unavailability of bail has become anomalous as the range of terrorist offences has grown. Bail with conditions would be an important alternative to longer pre-charge detention of those suspected of terrorism offences who do not pose a risk to public safety or a flight risk because it would enable the police to continue their investigations while still maintaining some control over the suspects. The Committee suggests an amendment to the Bill to make court-ordered pre-charge bail with conditions available in relation to terrorism offences (paragraphs 50-56).

The Committee has long recommended a change in the law to permit post-charge questioning, subject to safeguards. The Government has rejected its recommendations that there be specific safeguards on the face of the Bill. The Committee is not persuaded that existing safeguards are adequate and now proposes that the Bill should be amended to include seven safeguards (paragraphs 57-66).

Although the Bill contains some detailed amendments to the control orders regime in the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) 2005, the Government has rejected the Committee's view that more far-reaching amendments are needed to make the regime human rights compatible and to underpin the Government's professed preference for prosecution as the way to deal with terrorists. The Committee now puts forward a series of amendments to the PTA to give effect to its earlier recommendations (paragraphs 67-114).

The Government dismissed as "misplaced" the Committee's concerns about the serious human rights implications of the Bill's provisions on coroners' inquests involving material affecting national security. In the Committee's view the Government's justification, that the changes are necessary in order to make the law compatible with Article 2, is highly questionable. The law of public interest immunity already provides for non-disclosure of certain documents or information which would damage national security and this has been found to be compatible with Article 2 by the European Court of Human Rights. Appointment of the coroner by the Secretary of State would be fatal to any appearance of independence in any inquests where the State is potentially implicated in the death which is being investigated. The Committee therefore recommends that the clauses concerning coroners' inquests should be deleted from the Bill and that the issue should be returned to in the context of the forthcoming Coroners Bill (paragraphs 115-120).