The main arguments and conclusions
of the Newton Committee
10. The Newton committee was concerned about the
speed with which the Bill passed both Houses, and the difficulties
each House faced in subjecting the Bill to proper scrutiny.[5]
The committee was also conscious of a tendency for unnecessary
or ineffective powers to be taken by governments in response to
a terrorist threat merely in order to be seen to be doing something,
with the result that legislation is passed which is either unused,
unusable, or used for a purpose other than that originally offered
as a justification for it.[6]
11. The Newton committee therefore developed some
principles to govern the enactment and review of anti-terrorism
legislation. These include the following propositions:
a) such legislation should form a coherent whole,
in which the need for security is properly balanced with the rights
to liberty and privacy;
b) counter-terrorism law should be kept distinct
from mainstream criminal law, limited to dealing with terrorism,
accompanied by tailored safeguards, and consistent with the counter-terrorism
policies agreed and coordinated by the international community;[7]
c) provisions not directly related to terrorism
should be reviewed in the context of the areas of practice and
law to which they properly related, instead of being swept up
in an emergency Act justified by reference to a threat of terrorism;
d) Parliament should be able to review the Act
as a whole at regular intervals.
12. The Newton committee singled out a number of
areas in which it considered that the Act was defective, and made
recommendations including:
a) changes to the procedure for forfeiting suspected
terrorist property to protect sensitive security-related information
(paragraph 124);
b) repealing or improving the practicability
of provisions for bank account monitoring orders (paragraph 127
ff);
c) improving the mechanisms for sharing information
about terrorist financing to make it easier to comply with reporting
requirements (paragraph 132 ff);
d) allowing additional protection for the privacy
of innocent individuals affected by reporting requirements imposed
on the financial industry (paragraph 134 ff);
e) putting orders freezing assets thought to
be intended for use in terrorism on a basis contained in primary
legislation, and separating the legal basis for such orders from
that for freezing orders in other emergencies (paragraph 146 ff);
f) providing additional oversight and monitoring
of disclosure of information by public bodies to guard against
abuse (paragraphs 53 and 160 ff);
g) replacing the detention provisions in Part
4 of the Act with a new regime which deals with all suspected
terrorists and does not require a derogation from the ECHR (paragraphs
185 ff);
h) taking a more proactive approach to deciding
when it is possible to release people who have already been detained
(paragraph 200), and publishing more information about the use
of the detention power (paragraph 258);
i) reconsidering enhanced sentences for religiously
aggravated offences in the context of legislation to protect targets
of hate crime (paragraph 267 ff);
j) increasing the controls over pathogens and
toxins which can be used as weapons (paragraph 294 ff);
k) enhancing regulation of radioactive sources
and parliamentary scrutiny of the regulation (paragraph 310 ff);
l) putting extended police powers, which have
mainly been used in non-terrorism cases, in the legislative context
of police powers generally, rather than in a terrorism context
(paragraph 333 ff), and protecting the privacy of innocent people
through appropriate safeguards (paragraph 341 ff);
m) putting the regime for retention of communications
data under Part 11 of the Act into a mainstream data retention
regime within a coherent legislative framework with time limits
set by primary legislation, with strict regulation of access to
data and oversight by the Information Commissioner (paragraphs
396 ff);
n) radically simplifying the law of bribery and
corruption (paragraph 421); and
o) repealing the power to amend the primary legislation
by order under section 124 of the Act (paragraph 442).
13. We
welcome the report of the Newton Committee, and also the opportunity
for Parliament to reconsider the Act in the light of mature reflection
and experience which was not available when the Act was originally
passed.
14. We endorse
the principles on which the report is based, namely:
a) that
the individual has a right to liberty and to privacy; and
b) that the
authorities have a duty to take the steps necessary to protect
society from terrorism (page 8).
15. We
endorse the discussion of the application of these principles
in the report (paragraphs 79-91).
Human rights issues arising from
the report
16. The Newton Committee report identifies a number
of issues which are either expressed in terms of compliance with
human rights or have distinctive human rights implications. These
relate to Parts 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 and 11 of the Act. We consider
first the Newton Committee's recommendations relating to Part
4, together with Lord Carlile of Berriew's report on the operation
of Part 4 in 2003 and the draft Continuance Order. We then consider
the human rights implications of those parts of the Newton Committee
Report which relate to Parts 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11 of the Act (paragraphs
41-59 below).
5 Newton Committee Report, op cit., p. 5. Back
6
ibid., para. 107. Back
7
ibid., para. 2. Back
