Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2008

My Lords, first, I appreciate the thoroughness with which my noble friend always approaches these matters and, as I was able to experience again this morning outside the Chamber, the thoroughness with which he tries to ensure that all of us who want to be can be fully informed about how the Government are handling these matters and why they are doing so in the way that they are. I hope that we are not drifting into a situation in which the Joint Committee on Human Rights becomes a ritual formality in its reports. If we have a Joint Committee of that nature, which has high-powered legal and other specialist advice, we should take its reports very seriously. I hope that my noble friend will therefore be able to deal in a little more detail before we conclude our proceedings on some of the significant observations made in the report published on 30 June—yesterday. The first point to make is that the committee was clearly dismayed that the report of the statutory reviewer of the Terrorism Act was not published, "““in time to allow the House of Commons and its Committees properly to consider it prior to debate on the draft Order””." The second point, which the committee raised in the same sort of context, is that the reviewer's report did not, "““explain how the power to detain suspects for more than 14 days has been used in practice””." The committee goes on to suggest: "““Parliament needs this information in order to improve decision-making on this issue””." It recommends that, "““any future report should include this information and that the reviewer report directly to Parliament””." It would be very helpful to have my noble friend’s specific observations on those points. The committee also recommends that, "““relevant statistical information and the reviewer's report should be provided to Parliament at least 28 days before debate on these draft Orders to enable meaningful scrutiny of the need for renewal””." Again, it would be helpful to have my noble friend's comments. The report underlines—this is very important—that: "““No suspect has been held for more than 14 days since the renewal of the power last year””." We need to know a good deal more about why, therefore, we are renewing the order when it has not been necessary to use it in the past year. To assess how necessary it was, when it was used, to have a period between 14 and 28 days, the Joint Committee suggests that there needs to be a review. It strongly recommends, "““that such an independent review be conducted by [for example] the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate””." In its commitment to human rights and humanitarian concerns, the committee also suggests that there should be independent advice to the Government about, "““the impact on suspects of being detained for longer than 14 days””." It calls for such a process to be undertaken and for a report to be made to Parliament. It also questions how far the proceedings for applying for an extension can really be called ““judicial”” in how we have come to understand that word in the whole operation of our administration of law. I became concerned about that matter when I was a member of the committee, not least because—at their request, as I recall—some special advocates came to give evidence to the committee. Some of the things that they said were quite startling. They went on record as saying that in what they were expected to do, they could find very little that was in keeping with all their training and all the custom which had been part of the normal administration of justice. An issue about which the special advocates felt most strongly was the complete impossibility of having any detailed discussion with the client, the defendant, about what was going on and the reasons for it. They found a real tension there. To be honest, they were in some state of distress about the situation. We questioned them in some detail about how far they were just a group of special advocates who felt especially strongly and how far they were speaking for special advocates as a whole. They said that of course they were leading on the issue but that, in honesty, they felt that it was a concern shared by the whole community of special advocates. We cannot take that lightly. After all, in our stand against terrorism—no one must ever underestimate the gravity, the sinisterness or the nastiness of the threat—what we are defending is a society worth having. Our administration of justice is a crucial part of the quality of that society. We also want to be very careful that we are not giving the terrorists, the extremists, a victory by beginning to dismantle what we have been used to in the face of the perceived threat. We also have to be very careful that we are not being counter-productive—I am sure that we will debate these things more fully next week—by doing things that play into the hands of extremist manipulators of the more naive, who are open to manipulation. Those points are rather serious when we come to renew an order of this kind. I hope that my noble friend will be able to speak more specifically about the Government’s position in response to the observations of the Joint Committee. I hope that noble Lords will have realised that I very much share those views, given the work that I was able to do previously in this realm.