---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, although I am very clear in my uncompromising hatred of acts of terror, my contribution this evening will be short and straightforward. Indeed, I was unsure that I would speak at all in this Second Reading debate, but the brutal murder of a woman police officer in Bradford last Friday tipped the balance for me. I appreciate that that killing was criminal and not a result of terrorism. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that at this time, in these days of extreme violence, the police and security services need our maximum support if they are to have the confidence to do their duty on our behalf. Expressions of my concern about terrorism are not new to your Lordships’ House. On 14 September 2001 I spoke in the debate on international terrorism, just three days after the planes flew into the Twin Towers in New York. On 4 October 2001, I again spoke in the debate on terrorism. Then I spoke in the debate on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction on 24 September 2002. In addition, I have tabled Questions concerning terrorism on 7, 14 and 15 November 2001, 16 December 2002 and, much more recently, on 11 July 2005, four days after the London terrorist atrocities. Although I view human rights and civil liberties as fundamental and extremely important in our society, I have also argued that in the face of the desperate circumstances we are now experiencing, a new balance has to be established between human rights and civil liberties on the one hand and the security of this nation and its people on the other. In my view, no longer can we expect to enjoy our current provisions following the deaths of innocent citizens in London on 7 July this year. Following the recent debate in the other place where detaining suspects up to a maximum of 28 days was determined, terrorist bombs have exploded in Jordan and Pakistan, though fortunately not here in Britain. As is well known, the Government are in favour of a maximum of 90 days’ detention. That reflects the seriousness with which the Government, the police and the security services see our situation, and I understand that this number of days has not been objected to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the ““independent terrorism law watchdog””, as he was described in the Times on 10 November. I shall return to the question of the number of days a suspect can be detained a little later. As many noble Lords can testify, although I sit on the Government Benches and by and large support Labour’s policies, I can never be described as a Government serial supporter. From recollection, I have parted company with the Government on a range of issues: the promotion of homosexuality in schools; the reduction of the age of consent; fox hunting; elections to your Lordships’ House and, more recently, on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. But on the issue of detention for 90 days, I fully support the Government because I have enough trust in the police and the security services to use such a measure responsibly. I believe that in some cases they need such a period to ensure that further atrocities like the one in London this year are more adequately avoided. In any event, the Government, in recognising that their first priority is to protect the people of this land while at the same time not wanting to see any unnecessary erosion of civil liberties and human rights, introduced into their legislation a sunset clause and made provision for suspects to appear in court every seven days for a review. Before coming to your Lordships’ House, I was for some seven and a half years a magistrate. I learnt that the police do not always get it right, but neither do they always get it wrong. It is my view that if the police and the security services assess that in some cases they require 90 days to detain suspects, not only would it ensure that the British people will be protected to a much greater extent and our security much enhanced, but it would also give a much stronger guarantee that the police will get it right. That is because the time available for investigation would be more appropriate—and all this to be monitored every seven days in a court of law. If that was not enough, the legislation was to fall in 12 months, and no doubt would not be re-enacted if it did not work or there was found to be abuse. Therefore, in spite of what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, in the interests of the people we serve I give notice that if, during the future progress of this Bill through your Lordships’ House there is an amendment to restore the 90-day detention period, I shall support it.