---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 129:"After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—"    ““EXPIRY OR RENEWAL OF EXTENDED MAXIMUM DETENTION PERIOD (1)   This section applies to any time which— (a)   is more than one year after the commencement of section 23; and (b)   does not fall within a period in relation to which this section is disapplied by an order under subsection (2). (2)   The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument disapply this section in relation to any period of not more than one year beginning with the coming into force of the order. (3)   Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) has effect in relation to any further extension under paragraph 36 of that Schedule for a period beginning at a time to which this section applies- (a)   as if in sub-paragraph (3)(b) of that paragraph, for ““28 days”” there were substituted ““14 days””; and (b)   as if that paragraph and paragraph 37 of that Schedule had effect with the further consequential modifications set out in subsection (4). (4)   The further consequential modifications are— (a)   the substitution of the words ““a judicial authority”” for paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (1A) of paragraph 36; (b)   the omission of sub-paragraphs (1B) and (7) of that paragraph; (c)   the omission of the words ““or senior judge”” wherever ocurring in sub-paragraphs (3AA) and (5) of that paragraph and in paragraph 37(2); and (d)   the omission of the words from ““but”” onwards in paragraph 36(4). (5)   Where at a time to which this section applies— (a)   a person is being detained by virtue of a further extension under paragraph 36 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11), (b)   his further detention was authorised (at a time to which this section did not apply) for a period ending more than 14 days after the relevant time, and (c)   that 14 days has expired, the person with custody of that individual must release him immediately. (6)   The Secretary of State must not make an order containing (with or without other provision) any provision disapplying this section in relation to any period unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House. (7)   In this section ““the relevant time”” has the same meaning as in paragraph 36 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11).”” The noble Baroness said: I ask the Committee to agree that this new clause be added to the Bill. At the same time, I ask it to agree that Clause 36, which the new clause replaces, should not stand part of the Bill. I hope that we need not spend long on the amendment. In the contentious area of pre-charge detention, this is one aspect that is largely uncontentious. I am sure that Members of the Committee will give thanks for that. As the Committee will be aware, in another place, the Government committed to bringing forward a sunset clause to deal with the extended period of pre-charge detention. We were keen that Parliament should have another opportunity to consider the matter after that power had been in operation for a year, after which we felt that some of the concern about the extension of the maximum period for which a terrorist suspect could be detained prior to charge would have fallen away. Several amendments intended to provide that that extension would be time-limited to 12 months were tabled at Report in another place. One of those is now contained in the Bill in Clause 36. Clause 36 provides that Clause 23 ceases to have effect after 12 months unless an order is made by the Secretary of State providing that it shall remain in force for a period of 12 months. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. As the Committee may be aware, Clause 36 was proposed by Mr David Winnick, who did not have at his disposal the expert services and significant experience of parliamentary counsel when he drafted his amendment. As a result, Mr Winnick has accepted that Clause 36 is technically defective. In the incidence of no order being made, under the present drafting, Clause 36 would remove certain texts from Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 that are necessary to the operation of that Act. Also, as drafted, Clause 36 does not take account of the fact that Clause 23 makes amendments to Schedule 8 beyond increasing the maximum period of pre-charge detention. The new clause replaces Clause 36 in line with a commitment given to the House by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary at Report. It reflects the spirit of Clause 36 and replicates all its key provisions. The new clause provides that extension of the maximum period of detention and related provisions in the clause shall cease to have effect 12 months after the commencement of that clause unless an order continuing the provisions for a further 12 months has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. If such an order is not passed, the maximum pre-charge detention period in terrorism cases will revert to 14 days. That, in effect, provides for the annual renewal of the extension of the maximum to 28 days. The proposed new clause also contains provisions governing what would happen to those detained at the time should Parliament decline to renew the powers. That explains why such a relatively lengthy clause is needed for what should be a fairly simple provision. The new clause also differs from Clause 36 in that it focuses on amending Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 rather than Clause 23, thereby ensuring that the other amendments made by Clause 23 to Schedule 8 to that Act remain unaffected if an order renewing the extended period of detention is not made. That is important, as it preserves the useful alterations to the operation of Schedule 8, which included a number of enhancements to existing procedures advocated by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, the inclusion of which was agreed by the other place. The new clause correctly represents the spirit of Clause 36 while ensuring that no damage would be done to the fabric of the Terrorism Act 2000 if the powers to extend detention to 28 days were to lapse. That is important, as I am sure all noble Lords would accept. I do not believe that noble Lords would ever consider allowing defective legislation to leave this place. I beg to move.