Counter-Terrorism Bill

I was merely referring to the traditional period of one day, and I shall now continue that point by observing that the United States and two other common law jurisdictions—South Africa and New Zealand—have extended the period to two days. Ireland has seven days—as, indeed, we had in extremis when we were fighting the more deadly threat in sheer numbers of republican terrorism. Only in Australia has the period of detention been extended to 12 days, but it is still less than half the period under our own current legislation, let alone under what is proposed. Also, there are specific reasons for doing that in Australia, as the law has significant restrictions on questioning, including time restrictions. Are all these countries that are so comparable to our own country in their legal traditions all so wrong? Are the threats that we face so unique that they require us to abandon our historical safeguards against the abuse of state power? The Liberal Democrats are not persuaded. Moreover, there is a real risk that these provisions will prove to be wholly counter-productive in the prosecution of terror. Effective policing always requires the co-operation of the policed, without which intelligence is almost impossible to glean. Where will the willing informers be if the British state is seen to have declared war on a minority community? Prosecution requires witnesses to give evidence, but will the witnesses be forthcoming if their families and friends feel that they are aiding and abetting a state that is using disproportionate and discriminatory powers? These are not idle worries. The Home Affairs Committee has stated:"““Extended pre-charge detention carries the danger, which should not be underestimated, of antagonising many who currently recognise the need for cooperating with the police””." The Equality and Human Rights Commission astonishingly warned yesterday that if this legislation went through, it might take the Government to court. It also stated:"““In relation to the principle of non-discrimination, the Commission is concerned as to the potentially adverse impact the proposals will have on Muslim and other ethnic minority communities and on community relations more generally.””" It continued:"““The Commission believes, if the Bill becomes law, this will present difficulties for policing 'with consent' and for the prevention and detection of terrorist offences where co-operation and public confidence in the police service is an important consideration.””" Having heard what the hon. Member for Foyle has had to say, I do not seek to draw an exact parallel between the proposals in the Bill and what happened when internment was imposed in Northern Ireland on 9 August 1971. Internment is still the most dreadful warning of what can happen when a civilised and democratic state is seen by a large part of its own community to have stooped to the methods it abhors. Internment triggered a deluge of violence, leading to 25 deaths within the month. The remaining trust, eroded as it had been, between the Catholic community in Northern Ireland and the security services was destroyed , and the chance of winning hearts and minds had gone for ever. It was arguably the point at which the British state could no longer win the peace. That was ultimately recognised with the end of internment in December 1975. I should say something at this point about the much-vaunted parliamentary safeguards suggested by the Home Secretary. We are told that this would not be an automatic extension of the period of detention without charge, because Parliament would have to debate the matter. However, the proposals only guarantee that any parliamentary debate would be held 16 days after the maximum length of time that a suspect could be held. By that time, either the suspect would be charged, in which case any debate would be dealing with a matter that was sub judice, or they would have been released without charge, in which case the debate would be academic.