---

Terrorism Bill

I congratulate the noble Lord on the delicate way in which he has threaded his way through the PACE codes. I hope that he is not an insomniac because, having looked at them myself quite recently, I can well understand how that might lead to a bout of insomnia. I can deal with the amendment briefly and I hope the noble Lord will be reasonably satisfied by the response I provide. The noble Lord quite rightly wants to ensure that anyone arrested for an offence under Part 1 of the Bill should enjoy the protection of a code of practice made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or its territorial equivalent. We are at one on that issue obviously. I can assure the noble Lord that anyone arrested for a specific offence, including those created within the terms of the Bill in England and Wales, is automatically subject to the PACE regime and benefits from the codes of practice made under that Act, including Code C, to which the noble Lord referred, which pertains to treatment after arrest. There are similar arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure that equivalent protections exist. The other possibility is that when a person is arrested under the provisions of the Terrorism Act it may be that, following questioning, he is charged with one of the offences in the Bill. As matters currently stand, a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 in England and Wales is also automatically covered by PACE Code C. However, we recognise that different considerations might apply given the longer periods of detention for which that Act allows. We recognise the import of the argument and accept entirely that because of the longer periods of detention that could potentially arise we need to make special provision for that. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that on Report in another place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a very firm commitment to bring forward a specific and new code of practice to govern the treatment of those detained under Terrorism Act powers. My right honourable friend also set out how the codes would be made in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, since slightly different procedures apply in each of those jurisdictions. Given the hour, it would be wrong— perhaps even inappropriate—for me to burden the Chamber with details, although these can be found at col. 329 in Commons Hansard of 9 November. The key point is that we will seek to ensure that so far as possible, the same procedures and protections apply, regardless of where the individual resides in the United Kingdom and where he happens to be arrested. My right honourable friend concluded his remarks on the issue by saying,"““I can give a firm guarantee that the appropriate codes and their equivalent will be brought forward””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/05; col. 329.]" In light of that firm commitment and what I have said generally, I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured and agree to withdraw his amendment. I cannot provide him with a timetable for the new arrangements. It occurs to me that I ought to inquire what such a timetable might be, and when I do I will share the information with the noble Lord as well as other noble Lords with an interest in the Bill.