Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Clinton-Davis (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill 2005-06.


Terrorism Bill

: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, holds great affection in your Lordships’ House. We also rejoice in his skill. But on this occasion, he is utterly wrong. There is no doubt that the events of 7 July had a tremendous effect in this country. As far as any challenge from the European Court of Human Rights is concerned, we should await the result of that before making any judgment. At present, we are at liberty to opt for 60 days, if we wish. The court has not pronounced an opposite point of view at the moment. We have heard some remarkable speeches against the amendment today, but they have not changed my opinion since our debate on 13 December. I am not sure, at present, whether 28, 60 or 90 days offers a complete solution to our problems. However, I have come down in favour of the middle ground—the 60 days. It is the most appropriate that we can have at present. Although the other place opted for 28 days, it is incumbent upon us, as has been said today, to give it an opportunity to consider the 60-day solution, if it can be called that, which, by virtue of a procedural situation, it could not debate. When we last discussed this matter, the view of some noble Lords was, undoubtedly, in favour of the 28 days. However, I respectfully suggest that the motivation was rather mixed. I care about civil liberties, but in my view the test should not be: ““What do the police prefer?””, but ““What is most practical, having regard to fundamental civil liberties?””. Nearly everyone participating in this debate is fallible, as I am, but in my judgment 60 days should enable a competent police force to assemble its case more readily than the 28 days which has been supported by another place. We are dealing here with a fairly new and different type of criminal. We cannot afford to take chances with people’s lives. On the one hand, terrorists are increasingly sophisticated these days; internationally connected, and unconcerned about their personal consequences. On the other hand, our society would be ravaged if we permitted these factors totally to destroy our vision. Our concern for civil liberties is paramount but, at the same time, it is equable; no, that is not the right word. Like the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, I have had a stroke and cannot always remember the right word.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c1220-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Civil liberties Codes of practice Detainees Companies Assets Human rights Genocide National security Police Powers Nuclear weapons Police custody Terrorism Training
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk