Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the background to the order. It is easy to forget that in 1997—the year in which the present Government came to power—the time limit for detaining suspected terrorists was four days. That period had proved sufficient throughout the 25 years of Irish terrorism. The Terrorism Act 2000 increased the period from four to seven days. In my view, that was correct, even though four days remained the maximum for all other crimes, however complex or serious. In 2003, the police said that they wanted more than the seven days provided by the 2000 Act. They said that they needed 14 days, and they gave very much the reasons that are now set out in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, some of which the noble Lord has gone through. I do not intend to go through them myself as they have been debated on many occasions in this House. Therefore, in 2003 the police were given 14 days. In 2005, the police came back again, saying on this occasion that they needed 90 days, even though the reasons that they gave were exactly the same as the ones they had given in 2003 and even though the Association of Chief Police Officers had given evidence to the Constitutional Committee in the House of Commons that they had never needed more than 14 days. I need not remind the House that they did not get 90 days; they got 28 days, subject to a sunset clause. The sunset clause was important, for, as I understand it, it requires the Government and, in this case, the police, on whose advice the Government rely, to justify the original increase from 14 to 28 days in the light of what has happened during the past year; otherwise, a sunset clause is pointless. It is not enough for the Government to say that nothing has changed since a year ago. We are not now acting as a rubber stamp for what was agreed then. So far as I can judge from what the noble Lord has just said, nothing material has changed. He has said nothing new to justify the original increase from 14 to 28 days, let alone any increase from 28 days. The only evidence that we have had in the past year is from Ken Jones, a senior police officer and chairman of ACPO. He told the Observer during an interview a week or so ago that the police were ““up against the buffers”” with the 28-day limit and that they needed to be able to detain suspects for ““as long as it takes””. I do not know precisely what Ken Jones meant by that, but I hope that, when he comes to reply, the Minister will confirm that what he said does not represent government policy and that he will dissociate the Government from the remark made by that senior police officer. As for being ““up against the buffers””, I take the facts from the recent incidents in London and Glasgow, to which I think the noble Lord did not refer. No doubt it was those events that prompted the interview between Ken Jones and the Observer. Eight suspects were arrested; four were charged after eight, 12, 14 and 20 days respectively; three were released within 15 days; and one is still in hospital. Those facts do not suggest to me that the police were up against the buffers in that case. On the contrary, with the exception of the suspect who was detained for up to 20 days, 14 days would appear to have been ample for questioning the others. Of course, we do not know the evidence relating to the suspect who was detained for 20 days. There may have been special circumstances in his case; we do not know, for example, whether he could have been charged within 14 days but for some reason was detained longer. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten the House about that. That leaves only the airline bomb plot of August 2006. Again, perhaps the noble Lord can confirm that that is the only case on which the Government are relying since the 28-day period was enacted. In that case, 17 suspects in all were arrested; six were held for 28 days, of whom three were charged; and three were released. I do not know with what specific offence those three were charged. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Perhaps he can also tell us whether they could have been charged after 14 days and, if so, how the additional 14 days were occupied. If they could have been charged after 14 days, why were they not so charged? As for those who were released, he must tell us whether there is any reason to suppose that they could have been charged if they had been held longer than the 28-day period. With great respect, it will not be enough for the Minister to say that it is not the practice to comment on individual cases. That may well be so, but equally, statistics provided by the airline case do not help. Unless some particulars are given in relation to that case—and there is none other—we cannot in future be expected to renew the 28 days, let alone increase that period on the mere say-so of the police. I remind the House, if it needs reminding, that 28 days is already far beyond what is allowed in any other common law country, and is almost certainly in contravention of Article 5 of the European convention.