Counter-Terrorism Bill

Scotland has its own Committee structure and its own Ministers, so we did not seek evidence from those Law Officers. In our report published in December, we concluded that neither the police nor the Government had made a convincing case that the limit of 28 days was inadequate. The DPP told us that"““our day-to-day experience as prosecutors has been that the 28-day period has been useful and effective.””" He repeated that view, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, in The Times this morning. That is the view of the man who has to agree that there is enough evidence to prosecute. In a report produced under my predecessor in 2006, the Committee stated that"““the current limit may prove inadequate in future owing to the growing number of cases and the increase in suspects monitored by the police and security services make it entirely possible, and perhaps increasingly likely.””" Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, agreed with that proposition. Others who gave evidence to the Committee from all parties accepted the notion of very exceptional circumstances. Indeed, Liberty, which counts among its former officers two leading members of this Government over the past 10 years, proposed the use of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 in such circumstances. However, the majority of the Committee deemed that that would be unworkable in such exceptional circumstances—such as a national emergency—and it was felt that there were significant legal problems.