---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, Benjamin Franklin reminded us that those who surrender liberty for security deserve neither. We should be mindful of those words as we debate this Bill. In the face of terrorism, it is very easy to be overwhelmed by revulsion and a desire to act. It is easy to see new law as a way of sending tough signals to those who are our enemies. It is easy to see legislating as a way of providing the security and paternalism that people seem to want in such insecure times. Great though the pressures may be, governments should try to stand above the pressure to act and above the fray. They should take careful stock of the ways in which any benefits brought by new law might be outweighed by the damage done to our democratic rights and freedoms. We all agree that getting the protections right can be hard. Along with other noble Lords, I have no difficulty with the idea of introducing an offence of ““acts preparatory to terrorism””. In our new world, occasionally individuals may participate on an ad hoc basis in an act of terrorism or prepare for an act of terrorism while having no links with anyone else, thus making a conspiracy charge impossible. So I understand the benefit of introducing such a charge. In the current circumstances, I also understand that we want to have in place legislation to deal with the training of people for terrorism in, for example, Pakistan. However, in drafting such legislation, it is important that we are careful not to draw into the loop those who may not have the appropriate intention. Getting the balance right is hard. Into the balance must be put the fact that certain laws might alienate sections of our communities which we very much hope might be a source of intelligence, vital in combating terrorism. But that intelligence will close down if people feel that laws are being directed specifically at them. This is not because the Muslim community sympathises with terrorism but because there is a growing sense that special laws are being introduced just for them, that their people are being targeted and that they are in the firing line—a point frequently repeated to me at public meetings. It generates silence. We saw that with the Irish situation—an anxiety about expressing a view or going to the police with suspicions, a fear that they are all being lumped together and that, if they are not careful, they or their sons will be falsely accused. Terrorism always grows out of perceptions of injustice. Young Muslims in Britain look around the world and see people who share their faith suffering and being humiliated. Their sense of outrage against injustice is strong. That is an emotion common to the young, and some of us never outgrow it—the emotion of empathy and compassion when we see people being ill-treated or suffering. That emotion will be greatly inflamed if we are not careful about how we respond to the current threat that we all face. That is one of the reasons that we must exercise great caution in risking the imprisonment of people for lengthy periods without charge on mere suspicion. It is to be resisted with great care. We should also be careful about closing down the free debate that must take place about political situations around the world, whether in the Middle East, Chechnya, Afghanistan or Iran. A number of misperceptions have blighted the whole debate on the Bill. Last night I was talking to a Member of Parliament about the government attempt to introduce detention without charge for 90 days. The MP said to me that it was ridiculous that the police, in such difficult and serious cases, should have to cut off their investigations after just 14 days. I had to point out that that was not true. He was amazed when I explained that there was no such cut-off. After charging, police actually carry on with their investigations. They carry on interrogating witnesses who might be able to help their case in court; they carry on trying to make connections between individuals in custody and others around the world; and they carry on with their investigations into the forensics in the case—whether it is computers or links with explosives. What they cannot do after charging is to continue interrogating. That is the difference. There is nothing to stop the disembowelling of computers or the questioning of people abroad about an arrested person long after the charge is made. However, the reason that questioning does not continue after a very limited period—the reason that we have made that the rule—is that until now we have considered the great risks attached to continuing with interrogation over days and weeks and into months. People are more likely to confess to things that they did not do. We know how oppressive that can be. We also know the cost to people of being taken in, being kept in custody and not being charged. If that occurs over a long period of time, even if ultimately they are returned to their homes, there may be cost in terms of their employment and their relations with their families and how they are perceived by the rest of their community or by society at large. The damage to them personally is never retrieved. Our current 14-day detention period is way in excess of that of any other Commonwealth country and even that of most European countries. I have laid out the reasons. Interrogations over those long periods are resisted by civilised democracies. Even in most European countries there would not be detention for as long as a month before charging. One of the risks was set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Too often we look at a country with a totally different system, such as France, and cherry pick what people do elsewhere without understanding that the checks and balances are different within a common-law system. What is the answer to the problem posed by the police—that the world of international terrorism is more complex? I am currently involved with a terrorist-linked trial at the Old Bailey. The officers on the case told me that in the high-tech unit of the anti-terrorist squad they have only eight officers with the skill to unpack the contents of a computer. That is double what was available to them only a few months ago. Resourcing is an issue. Secondly, why do we not look at the possibility of creating an exception to the rule of no requestioning after charge? If something of real significance comes to light—a witness abroad who says, ““I know that this man was in a training camp in Pakistan””—why cannot we have an exception to the rule of no further questioning on an application to a High Court judge and with the sanction of the Attorney-General? We would not then have to abase our principles and demur from things that have been part of our rule of law. I, too, am concerned about the charge of encouraging terrorism because I think that we should have clear intent in the Bill. I am also concerned about proscribing non-violent organisations, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir. Doing so will drive it underground and alienate whole sections of our Muslim community. They are intelligent people, who do not espouse violence but do want a debate about the principles of Sharia law and so on. Finally, the debate is important and will continue over the weeks in Committee. It is important that we remember that justice is the supreme ethical value and that there can be no peace without it. If we want to end terrorism, we have to do so with justice. When my noble friends on the Back Benches and one of our new Labour colleagues say that we may be looking at a time when collective rights come to the fore and individual rights will wither on the vine, I can only say that if that is true and if that is the future we are looking at, I feel deeply sad. I am a democratic socialist but I am a liberal, and I am proud of bearing all those labels. I can say with a true sense of alarm that if it is felt on our own Benches that individual rights do not matter, let us remember Stalin.