---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, as a general observation on this Bill, I should like to say that, just like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer, says in his excellent report of 6 October, I have heard the view that there is no need for new terrorism-specific legislation—that the law already has a range of offences which have the potential to counter terrorism. This view, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, points out, had been expressed by some,"““with profound knowledge of the criminal justice system””." He comments that that view has been far less in evidence since 7 July and he also says that he disagrees with it. As a non-lawyer, I disagree with it too. I believe that the terrorism threat the UK faces now is of a different level of seriousness and complexity from anything we have faced before, and I shall come back to that later. The Government have attempted to build a consensus around legislation, as my noble friend the Minister said in her introduction, in order to give the police the tools they need, and have asked for, to tackle terrorism. They have consulted widely and made significant alterations between first and later drafts. Following the Committee stage in another place, they also made further alterations, including those to narrow the offence of glorification, look at the definition of terrorism, increase the scrutiny of pre-charge detention and impose a sunset clause. Briefly, on the question of glorification, Clause 1(1) now makes clear that the offence of glorification can be committed only if a person intends his remarks to be an inducement to terrorism or is reckless as to that possibility. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says in his review that he found the proposal in its revised form a proportionate response to the real and present danger of young radically minded people being persuaded towards terrorism by apparently authoritative tracts wrapped in a religious, or quasi-religious, context. And he believes that it is human rights-compatible. I need to move on, but to answer some of the alarmist fears we have all heard in the media where, in hypothetical situations, entirely innocent people would be caught up in this legislation, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the extensive list of defences enumerated in the Bill, which anyone proceeded against can use and be covered by. Those defences are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(7), paragraphs (a) to (c) of Clause 2(8) and in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Clause 2(9). I do not have time to enumerate them but they are in the Bill. I now turn to an important part of the Bill with which I profoundly disagree: in Clause 23, the provision that pre-charge detention can be up to 28 days. I firmly believe that this should be 90 days—for many reasons. First, I want to pick up the thread from the beginning of my speech—that the gravity and nature of the terrorist threat differs significantly from anything we have had to deal with before. We are facing fanatics aiming to kill and maim as many people as possible and to sacrifice themselves in the process. Often they are part of a network of complex terrorist organisations with international links, as my noble friend Lady Symons so ably explained in her speech. They are making ever-increasing use of advanced new technology, including computers with encryption, and other new tools of the trade in the ever-changing world of IT. The normal procedure of letting plans for a crime run until evidence is accumulated to incriminate the participants must be shortened because no one would dare to risk losing track of a suspect and some terrible terrorist event taking place. The international links mean that there are inevitable delays as those are tracked and are dependent for speed on foreign liaison services—again, as my noble friend Lady Symons explained. Some of those liaison services are less efficient, and some less co-operative, than others. Foreign help is often required to establish accurate identity, in some cases even of those in custody, let alone their contacts. The provision of an adequate supply of interpreters and translators to deal with a mountain of work and material also slows the process. As Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of the Metropolitan Police points out in the impressively detailed attachment to his letter of 6 October to the Home Secretary, it is not just a question of resources, unlike what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, because some of those procedures will unavoidably take time. Speaking of the papers supplied by Assistant Commissioner Hayman, which are very much echoed in paragraphs 57 to 60 of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I must say to those, including the right honourable David Davis and the honourable Dominic Grieve, who say that they do not find those arguments compelling that their definition of the word ““compelling”” must be different from mine. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says at paragraph 61:"““On the basis of my own enquiries and processes as independent reviewer, I am satisfied beyond doubt that there have been situations in which significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts have gone unprosecuted as a result of the time limitations placed on the control authorities following arrest””." He concludes in paragraph 62:"““I share the view that as a maximum three months is probably a practicable and sensible option, all other things being equal. I recommend that the proposal for that maximum should be so regarded””." I agree and I cannot find that up to a maximum of 90 days’ pre-charge detention, with a review every seven days by a senior judge and with a sunset clause, would be an unjustified infringement of civil liberties. I also cannot see how, when you ask the professional experts for their opinion—the Met terrorist experts, ACPO and ACPO Scotland—and they give it, you can override that unless you have overwhelming and compelling reasons to do so. I have heard no such reasons. I read in amazement that the shadow Culture Secretary, the honourable Theresa May, is reported to have said last week concerning licensing laws that she hoped that the Government would listen to public opinion and senior police officers. Clearly, public opinion and senior police officers should be listened to only when it suits the Conservative Party. On this most serious of issues, national security, the Government tried to do just that. In my opinion, that was correct and 28 days is wrong. In other respects, I support the Bill.