---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, first of all I declare an interest as president of the Association of Police Authorities. I have spent the past 16 years working with senior police officers on a broad range of issues. My first point, which I make very strongly, is that throughout that time I have done everything I can to ensure that policing and security issues, at both local and national level, are considered on their merits and not on the basis of party political considerations. I confess that I was extremely surprised and disappointed at the partisan tone of some of the discussions on the legislation in the other place. However, I know that your Lordships will share my strong views that we must approach the legislation in a non-partisan way and consider it in the interests of the safety, security and civil rights of all our citizens and communities. I must make a second preliminary point. The police have been criticised—unfairly in my view—for giving us the benefit of their professional advice. A former Home Secretary in the other place castigated them on the grounds that they had, in his view, started to lobby for a political position in Parliament. That is precisely the sort of intemperate language that so damagingly politicises the debate on the Bill. We heard echoes here, earlier today, from the Liberal Democrat leader in the House. The police have given their professional opinion on the measures needed to combat terrorism, just as doctors, teachers and other professionals have been asked for the benefit of their expertise on potential legislation in their fields. We need experts to give advice but it is surely up to us, as politicians, to decide how much or how little of it to accept. On a number of occasions in the past I have disagreed with senior police officers on one matter or another. We thrashed the issues out—sometimes I stuck to my guns; sometimes I was persuaded to change my mind—but local accountability for policing and the tripartite structure mean that it is local and national politicians who agree the policing strategies and frame the laws, not the police. However, in discharging our responsibilities, we need to listen carefully to what the police and security services are telling us. I shall confine myself to commenting on only a few of the provisions in the Bill in order to keep to time. First, I welcome the fact that we are updating our laws to deal with the dangers which now face us in this new century and filling in vital gaps. I am a non-lawyer but some of the provisions on the statute book seem to be hopelessly inadequate to deal with the kinds of crimes which we know are currently being contemplated. For example, is the charge of conspiring to cause a public nuisance adequate to describe the plans of a small number of fanatics aiming to poison our drinking water or the air that we breathe? I particularly welcome the clauses which deal with the threat of nuclear terrorism—a horrendous prospect but, none the less, one which we must take seriously. As many noble Lords have already said, Clause 5, which relates to acts preparatory to terrorism, will cover the early stages of terrorist activities and also cover those people who facilitate the carrying out of terrorist acts. This brings me to Clause 23. I have listened carefully to arguments from the Police Service about why it needs extra time to hold terrorist suspects before charges are brought. As my noble friend Lady Ramsay has already pointed out, terrorist suspects may have to be taken into custody at a far earlier stage of proceedings to protect the public. There are then a huge range of tasks that officers have to undertake, which must not be under-estimated, ranging from decryption of computers, other code breaking, analysis of telephone calls, scanning of CCTV footage, searches of premises and vehicles, interviewing of potential witnesses, contact with foreign police and security services, translations and so on. This list of tasks is not imaginary or exaggerated. After July of this year, 80,000 videos of CCTV footage had to be scrutinised, 14,000 fingerprints taken at 160 suspected crime sites, as well as lethal chemicals in a private house made safe, which took two weeks. The security services are supporting the police in wanting a longer pre-charge period. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, described 90 days as practicable and sensible. I am struck by the fact that all those people who have had access to security and intelligence information support a pre-charge detention period of far more than 28 days. I find it hard to support 28 days for the simple reason that I am not clear what logic lies behind it. In the other place, the mover of the proposal for 28 days, when questioned on this very point, replied that it was double the existing 14 days and that is why he chose it. But that is not good enough to counter the strong arguments coming from the police. There are three further arguments for 28 days or less that I have heard, all of which I respect. These are that detention for longer without charge could radicalise young Muslims, in particular, and make ethnic communities less likely to supply vital community intelligence to the police; that it will fatally undermine civil liberties built-up in this country painstakingly over centuries; and that it is the maximum period many people think is not likely to be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. I respect all those arguments. However, I have to set against them the chilling warning from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as we have already heard, that under present time limitations, significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts have gone unprosecuted and that this is not in the public interest. I do not know, but I fear, that in the past year potential terrorists may have been in police hands and then released into the community because the police did not have long enough to build up a case against them. This is likely to be the case with 28 days, which is why I find it hard to support. As a large number of people have said to me over the past few weeks, ““We have human rights too: not to be blown up or injured in a terrorist attack””. Governments therefore have to do everything possible to protect the public, and, on all the evidence I have heard, 28 days’ detention—in the case of a very small number of suspected terrorists—will not be long enough. I would not go to the stake for 90 days, but I believe an absolute minimum of 60 days is necessary for public protection. It needs to be emphasised that we are talking about a small number of cases, and that a High Court judge needs to agree that the time extension is justified on a week-by-week basis. All of us have to make difficult judgments about where the balance now lies between civil liberties on the one hand and public protection on the other. My judgment, in the face of the deadly threats facing us, is that Clause 23 does not at present strike that balance. I am deeply concerned about it, and I hope other noble Lords will agree with me that we should try hard to persuade the other place to think again.