Counter-Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, on her maiden speech, which combined succinctness with analytical clarity—a winning combination. She applauded the decision to discuss this issue and encapsulated our dilemma, which is the right to life versus civil liberties. I trust she will forgive my paraphrasing her remarks. I hesitated to enter the List on this debate, given the array of legal talent that has been displayed today, but I felt that the metaphorical view of the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus would be relevant to the discussion, given that the majority of the public, according to the polls, support the Government’s view. Given the limitations of time, I want to focus on pre-charge detention, starting with the point made by my noble friend Lord Robertson, who reminded us that it is up to 42 days, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, internment, which is a more open-ended judgment. The House of Lords Research Paper says: "““Under this proposal, the 14 day limit would remain the standard, permanent limit with the 28 day limit needing to be agreed annually by Parliament as now. The new, temporary, upper limit of 42 days could only become law where there was an exceptional operational need and under a ‘triple lock’ comprising of a report by the police and DPP on a specific operational need, the agreement of the Home Secretary and a set of strong parliamentary and judicial safeguards””." Not quite the subjective view of the Home Secretary, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, suggested. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I do not know if he is in his seat. He was the first person to refer to the Magna Carta in this debate, reminding us of the enshrined right to a fair trial and the principle of habeas corpus. However, I cannot accept his invoking of the dire warning from Pastor Niemöller on the power of the state. This is not the fascist Germany of the Third Reich, where the rights of the individual were trampled into the dust along with the remains of the Weimar republic. These powers are carefully circumscribed, subject to the scrutiny of an independent judiciary and parliament, and time-limited. To my knowledge these are not features of a national socialist Government. Time and again contributors to this debate have warned against extending pre-charge detention because of the possibility of a negative community impact. A serious charge, but can it be substantiated? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, gave us the example of the part he played as a responsible member of the community in reporting his suspicions about an extreme Welsh nationalist, who, he told us, was no longer a threat now that there is a Welsh Assembly. If only it was as simple as that. But we know that the vast majority of the Muslim community do not support terrorism, and those who preach the nihilist gospel of al-Qaeda know that innocent Muslims were among those who perished on 7 July. This tiny minority of extremists has no negotiable agenda, unlike our experience of Welsh nationalists and even the IRA. They want to undermine our democratic society and believe that the end justifies the means. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, on pre-charge detention being a recruiting sergeant for terrorism: "““I do not accept that. The Government have now given a great deal of resources to the prevents strand of counter-terrorism strategy, and they are right about that … I do not see the period of detention as a recruiting ground””.—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism Bill Committee, 24/4/08; col. 127]" Like a number of my noble friends, I believe that the controlled extension of up to 42 days is justified on the grounds of the severity of a threat which is global in reach and the complexity of these cases, which utilise the power of IT and the internet to achieve their objectives. Add to this the complexity of encryption and translation, plus the need to seek co-operation from a range of Governments and judicial systems. Does this not represent an enormous challenge to national security which we have to take very seriously? Returning to the need for a period of more than 28 days, once again I can do no better than refer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. He said: "““I want us to have an enduring corpus of terrorism law. I would not like to see someone released—a scientist, for example—who then took part in some future terrorism plot, and then have to observe the reaction in both Houses of Parliament to such an event occurring””.—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism Bill Committee, 24/4/08; col. 128.]" He also said: "““I think that there have been cases where inquiries overseas, which might have led to a more realistic and serious charge, have not been completed””.—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism Bill Committee, 24/4/08; col. 123.]" The noble Lord made the point: "““It is desirable in as many cases as possible that people should be charged with something approaching the criminality of which it is reasonably suspected that they are guilty and on which a prime facie case will be presented. I have heard it said that the way to deal with that is simply to produce holding charges—the threshold test almost encourages that—and to produce the real charge at some later stage. I do not see that as being any more human-rights compatible than a properly judicially supervised extended detention period that results in proper charges being ""brought on a sound basis, without the necessity to use the threshold test, which is undoubtedly second-best, as the Crown Prosecution Service recognises””.—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism Bill Committee, 24/4/08; col. 122.]" On comparisons with other countries, once again, the noble Lord says: "““I think that Liberty has been grossly misleading about this: every comparable country, perhaps by different means such as a very small holding charge, has at least as long periods of detention as are envisaged in this country. If we have the right protections, we can do an awful lot better than any comparable country in the world””.—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism Bill Committee; 24/4/08. col. 126]." That is a pretty powerful statement from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I should like to end on a quote; we have heard a lot of quotes tonight, and I suppose that we are all selective in that respect. Chief constable Ken Jones, ACPO president, says: "““We stand by our advice to government that it is possible to foresee circumstances in the future under which the current 28 day limit will prove insufficient””." Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of the Secret Intelligence Service, said: "““I am instinctively against the erosion of the basic liberties to which we in the UK are so thoroughly attached. However, when I know that a few of my fellow citizens feel that they are justified in the name of some greater purpose to attempt to kill their neighbours, then I want them, where and when necessary, to be effectively constrained … As the intensity and complexity of terrorist investigations continues to increase and more distant and less co-operative jurisdictions come within their scope, it is certain that some cases, and perhaps very serious ones of a type not hitherto experienced (for example employing unconventional weapons technologies) will require more than twenty-eight days investigation. In some states simply establishing identity is a major investigative challenge. When we do need that extension, we will need it badly””." I shall not go on, in the interests of time, except to say that I commend the Government for this legislation. It is a difficult but courageous decision.