5 Parliamentary Scrutiny
55. During this inquiry we have
discovered many examples of a lack of dynamism when it comes to
the implementation of useful counter-terrorism reforms. An example
of this is the Parliamentary Committee on the National Security
Strategy which was first proposed by the Prime Minister in October
2008. It was not until 13 January 2010 that this Committee was
actually established. While we welcome the establishment of
this body and we are glad to see our Chairman nominated to serve
on it, we feel that this does not inhibit us from further scrutiny
of Project CONTEST as the need arises. We also question why this
process has taken over a year to complete and suggest that it
shows a lack of urgency on the Government's part.
56. On 22 January the Joint Terrorism Analysis
Centre (JTAC) raised the United Kingdom's threat level from "substantial"
(attack is a strong possibility) to "severe" (attack
is highly likely), reversing an earlier change in July. The Home
Secretary said that this change was not related to a specific
threat but was based on a wide range of factors. The statement
announcing the decision did not contain specific information about
the effect this change would have on the work of the security
services and how this decision will affect the public. As of
Monday 25 January it had also yet to be announced to the House.
Changes in the threat level
should be explained to Parliament at the earliest practicable
opportunity and Ministers should seek to explain their decision
in front of a Parliamentary Committee. As well as announcing
the change in the threat level, as far as possible Ministerial
statements should include how this change will impact on the public.
We therefore welcome the attendance of Lord West in front of
this Committee on Tuesday 26 January to discuss the change in
threat level.
| 
