Can human rights make it onto the election agenda

Although in danger of being shunted off the front pages by post-budget squabbles and political suspensions, the news which should be making an impact is that a parliamentary committee is questioning if the range of measures introduced since 2001 are still a valid and justifiable response to the threat of terrorism.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has today published a 69 page report on counter–terrorism policy and human rights entitled: Bringing Human Rights Back In - no grey area there.

According to the Beeb, the committee questions whether ministers could legitimately argue, nine years on, that a "public emergency threatening the life of the nation" remained.

What the committee also have to say is that they are unconvinced by government denials of complicity in rendition and torture of suspects. They state:

"We are concerned about the Government’s narrow definition of what amounts to complicity in torture. The Government’s formulation appears to be carefully designed to enable it to say that, although it knew or should have known that some intelligence it received was or might have been obtained through torture, this did not amount to complicity in torture because it did not know or believe that such receipt would encourage the use of torture by other States.

This is a significant and worrying change in definition. We also argue that, in light of recent developments such as the publication of the full High Court judgement in the Binyam Mohamed case, the case for setting up an independent inquiry into the allegations of complicity in torture is now irresistible."

But will this become an election issue? What are the chances that human rights - or its decline in the UK - will be raised during the much-heralded leadership debates? The questions are entirely rhetorical, of course.