Oversight and Accountability The debate in the UK about counterterrorism intelligence cooperation has focused largely on allegations of UK complicity in the illegal detention and abuse of detainees in third countries. Over the past year, numerous cases have come to light involving interrogations conducted by UK intelligence services of UK nationals or dual nationals detained and tortured in Pakistan, Egypt, Bangladesh, and the United Arab Emirates. Allegations of UK complicity in torture have led to significant parliamentary scrutiny. Both the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have held hearings and published conclusions and recommendations. The foreign minister, the home office minister, as well as the director of MI5 declined to give evidence to the JCHR, and the previous government rejected the Joint Committee’s recommendations. The response of the Labour government to the JCHR underscored its unwillingness to submit itself to proper parliamentary scrutiny of its counterterrorism policies. It also underscores the need for greater permanent democratic oversight of intelligence services, on the other hand. As noted above, oversight of the security services in the UK is carried out by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). Tasked with examining the budget, administration and policy of the MI5 and the MI6, the ISC mandate is handicapped in several ways.84 First, the body is not a parliamentary committee, despite being composed of members of parliament. Second, the security services and the responsible ministers (the Foreign Secretary in the case of MI6 and Home Secretary in the case of MI5) can refuse to provide to the ISC sensitive information, defined as information that could reveal sources, methods or other assistance; information about particular operations; and information supplied by another government if that government does not consent. Third, the committee’s annual report is submitted first to the Prime Minister, and only a redacted version is shared with both houses of parliament. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has criticized the ISC’s lack of independence and called for the creation of a proper parliamentary select committee.85 The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, calling the ISC a “creature of the Government,” has also expressed concerns recently over what it considers a “deficit in parliamentary scrutiny of intelligence and security matters” in the UK.86 84 The ISC’s mandate includes also the Government Communications Headquarters, the agency devoted to signals intelligence and protecting government communication and information systems. 85 JCHR, Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture, paras. 57-66. 86 House of Commons FAC, Human Rights Annual Report 2008, para. 63. “No Questions Asked” 32