Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 June be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government agreed during the debates on what became the Terrorism Act 2006 that there should be a requirement for the annual renewal by Parliament of Section 23 of that Act. Section 23 extends the maximum period of detention of terrorist suspects before charge from 14 days to 28 days. Section 25 of the Act says that the period of detention will revert to 14 days unless it is disapplied by order. The order before noble Lords today, therefore, disapplies Section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 for a period of one year, beginning on 25 July 2007, thereby extending Section 23 for another year. Terrorism investigations can be immensely time-consuming and the increase from 14 days to 28 was necessary primarily as a result of greater use of encrypted computers and mobile phones, the increasingly complex nature of terrorist networks that have to be investigated—indeed, they have learnt from the way we have prosecuted them and chased after them and have become even cleverer at hiding some of these aspects of computers and mobile phone networks—and the increasingly international nature of terrorist networks, meaning greater language difficulties and a greater need to gather evidence from abroad. In a current case, we have had to approach 17 countries. Such investigations may also involve properties where there is the possibility of CBRN material being present. It is against this background that we have to consider the most appropriate steps to protect our citizens from the threats posed by terrorists. The potential consequences of a terrorist attack are of such magnitude that it is imperative that the police have the powers to arrest terrorists before they can achieve their goals. The scale and nature of the threat we now face means that, when a terrorist plot is uncovered, law enforcement agencies often have to intervene at a much earlier stage in the investigation than they would like, or would do in a normal criminal case. As a result, at the point of arrest, the information that the police have available to them may be based more on intelligence than admissible evidence. This is one of the fundamental ways in which terrorism is different from other crimes. Therefore, unlike other forms of crime, proportionately more work needs to be done on the investigation after an individual has been arrested. The provisions for extended pre-charge detention to 28 days in the Terrorism Act 2006 take account of these unique difficulties and the decision to increase the pre-charge detention limits from 14 to 28 days has, I believe, been justified by subsequent events. It means that we have been able to bring forward prosecutions that might otherwise not have been possible. Since the power came into force in July 2006, six people have been held for between 27 and 28 days, covering two different operations. Of those, three were charged with terrorist-related offences. I should point out that the existing application for an extension is a rigorous process. At present, those arrested can be detained for 48 hours, after which the police or CPS may apply to a judicial authority for an extension of detention warrant. The application is to a designated magistrate when the person has been in detention for less than 14 days and to a High Court judge thereafter. A CPS lawyer makes the application and the senior investigating officer is present. Defence solicitors are provided in advance of each application with a written document setting out the grounds for the application. The applications are usually strenuously opposed and can last for several hours. The officer may be questioned vigorously by the defence solicitor about all aspects of the case. Applications to extend the detention period may be made for up to seven days at a time up to a maximum of 28 days. The conditions in which the suspects are detained are covered in detail in the relevant code of practice. They include ensuring that suspects have access to legal advice and that their welfare needs are met. Suspects can be held only for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to criminal offences; they cannot simply be detained for public safety reasons. That means that, once the police have exhausted their questioning of a suspect, the person must either be released or charged, regardless of how many days they have been detained. There has not yet been a case where 28 days has been inadequate but, as I said, all 28 days have already been proved necessary, and it is possible to envisage cases where the police will need more than 28 days in the future because of the increasing scale, complexity and sequential nature of operations. We are consulting, and hope to achieve a consensus, on the period of pre-charge detention where, for terrorism alone, we believe that exceptional circumstances make it necessary to extend the maximum period of detention while ensuring rigorous judicial oversight and parliamentary accountability. That document will come out tomorrow and we hope to be able to get consensus on it. It is part of the wider consultation on the forthcoming counter-terrorism legislation. All of us, on all sides of the House, appreciate the seriousness of the terrorist threat that we face and the importance of having the right measures in place to counter that threat. This year alone, a total of 26 individuals have been convicted in eight terrorist cases. Terrorism is a huge international challenge but it is a particular challenge for democracies, which must strive to protect individual liberties while, at the same time, ensuring collective security. It is vital to strike a balance between protecting the rights of the detainee and ensuring that an investigation proceeds properly and effectively, enabling the police to deal with the complexity of modern terrorism investigations, thereby protecting the rights of our own citizens to live their lives in safety and security. I hope that noble Lords agree that this order achieves that, and I commend it to the House. I beg to move. Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 June be approved. 20th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord West of Spithead.)