Counter-Terrorism Bill

There was none, and I hope that my hon. Friend feels that he is making precisely the point that I am making. At the time of the miners' strike, a law was passed that received neither judicial review nor scrutiny. Therefore, although he and I may have appeared to be at odds, in fact my hon. Friend and I are almost certainly at one. I am grateful to him—not least for the fact that his intervention has clocked up an extra minute for me that enables me to say something about 90 days. What I want to say about 90 days has been said before, but it is worth reiterating in this House. If 42 days is the period of time required to do justice in the circumstances that are envisaged why, two years ago, were hon. Members on my side of the House whipped to approve a period double that which is now deemed to be necessary? That question has never been answered to my satisfaction, although the Government have adopted the rather coy approach of saying, ““We have been listening, and we've learned.”” What, exactly, has been learned? What is the blazing, Damascene truth that has suddenly caused Ministers to say, ““We got it wrong. We were going to lock people up for six weeks, which was completely unnecessary. We are very sorry.””? The only person to my knowledge who has attempted to defend the Government's approach was Lord Falconer. He made a robust—indeed, rotund—contribution but, when one reads it, one sees that it was completely untenable. I simply place that before the House, for the House's delectation. We should not have trusted the argument two years ago, and there is absolutely no reason why we should do so now.