Terrorism Bill

I shall give way again in a moment. I was saying that I was prepared to look at the points raised in amendments Nos. 10, 11, 29, 30, 31, 32, 16 and 17 and at ways of coming back on Report with the changes that are needed. To be candid, I should like to do that on the basis of consensus in the House, a point to which I shall return in a second. I want to make some observations about Lord Carlile’s criticisms, which came into the discussion. In paragraph 61 of his report, Lord Carlile said:"““I am satisfied beyond doubt that there have been situations in which significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts have gone unprosecuted as a result of the time limitations placed on the control authorities following arrest.””" I hope that the Liberal Democrats will think carefully about those remarks when they decide to vote against clause stand part. In paragraph 111 of the report, Lord Carlile stated:"““I regard the current proposals . . . as providing a set of useful and necessary additions to the law to counter terrorism.””" I want quickly to go through Lord Carlile’s criticisms of the procedures. The first was that clause 5, which deals with acts preparatory to terrorism, is too narrow and does not cover facilitation offences. We believe that those offences are already covered by existing law and we shall discuss that with Lord Carlile. On clause 6, he argues that ““training for terrorism”” is too wide and should not have worldwide extent. We do not agree; without its wide geographical scope the clause would have little point, as most terrorist training takes place abroad. Lord Carlile questions the necessity for clause 8—““Attendance at a place used for training””—as there will be offences of giving and receiving terrorist training. We want clause 8 to deal with that issue, because we want to cover all those who attend terrorist training camps and to avoid people being able to claim that they were there only in a journalistic or humanitarian capacity. Lord Carlile raised five points sharply about clause 23, which we are currently debating. The first was that pre-charge detention beyond 14 days should be authorised by a senior circuit judge, with appeal to a High Court judge. I have acknowledged that, and agreed as early as Second Reading that we would take steps to implement that recommendation. The second point was that there should be an opportunity for a defendant to make representations against continued detention, with oral hearings at the discretion of the judge. That process happens already, but if clarity is needed to show that it happens we shall be prepared to offer it. Thirdly, Lord Carlile said that there should be weekly decisions about extensions of detention, with reasons given in writing. The Bill already provides for weekly decisions, although I have to add the qualification that I have just made in response to amendments Nos. 10 and 11: reasons are given, although not normally in writing. It would be possible to require that, but the reasons could be only that the test in the legislation was satisfied. We are ready to consider that, although we do not believe that it is necessary. We have more difficulty with Lord Carlile’s recommendation that the judge should supervise the investigations and require specific lines of inquiry to be pursued. Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 deal with that. That would effectively introduce the continental system of investigating magistrates. As I have said in the House and elsewhere, I personally have sympathy with that approach, especially in some cases. However, there is currently no consensus about such a dramatic change in our legal system. It would not be sustainable for us to try to legislate to that effect. That is a difference of opinion with Lord Carlile, not on principle—I am sympathetic to his position—but because the reform is so substantial compared with how we have done things in the past that we could not simply introduce it in the Bill. Lord Carlile’s final point is that special advocates should be able to see all the intelligence material, make representations on behalf of the detained and advise the judge. That follows on from the recommendation to introduce investigating magistrates. Without them, there is no need to ““advise the judge””. The detained person is already entitled to legal representation, so it is difficult to understand precisely what special advocates would add. Again, I am prepared to consider that if there is a way of dealing with the point directly.