---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, obviously, like the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, I am in the hands of the House on this matter. I intervened because I sensed that it was time to move to a resolution of the issue—I think that I have the support of some of your Lordships—because we have now been discussing it for jolly nearly four hours. By the time I have made my brief remarks and the noble Baroness has spoken, it will certainly be over four hours. As the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, put it, we are all pretty familiar with the arguments. I will therefore be very brief in running through the lines which I took when we debated this for over two hours in Committee as to why it is wrong to move from 28 days to 90 days—or, for that matter, the extension to 60 days proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. First, we believe that it is wrong in principle; it is equivalent to a six-month custodial sentence and tantamount to imprisonment. Okay, we have moved from seven days to 14 days to 28 days, but a further move to 60 or 90 days would be much greater; therefore, one can argue that it is wrong in principle. Secondly, it is arguable that it is contrary to Article 5.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said in his report:"““I question whether what is proposed in the Bill would be proof to challenge under the Human Rights Act given the length of extended detention envisaged””." The same would apply to 60 days; some have argued that even 28 days might be a breach. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, has also stated that it could be in breach of Article 5.3. We have even heard rumours that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has expressed certain doubts, but perhaps the noble Baroness can touch on that in due course. Thirdly, as argued today by others better qualified than me, the provision could be a recruiting sergeant for terrorists. Even one case of an individual being detained for three months would cause further radicalisation in the community. Fourthly, we believe that the problems highlighted by the police relate just as much to resource and not to law. Intelligence, not legislation, is the key to successful counter-terrorism, a point made very effectively by my noble friend Lord Hurd and others at Second Reading and re-emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, in Committee. Fifthly, there are alternatives. We could amend the bail or police and criminal evidence provisions to get the accused back for post-charge questioning having imposed control-order-style conditions on him. That was a suggestion from Liberty. Sixthly, there is the alternative of charge with a lesser offence and in the mean time gathering alternative proposals. The key argument against 60 days’ detention is that it is Parliament’s duty as the legislature to temper the demands of the various parts of the executive and its agencies—in this case, the police—and not to accept their demands without question. Blind reliance on advice from any government agency is not a healthy way of legislating. The Government’s central argument, repeated today, was that they were acting on police advice. The issue of balance between public security and the rights of individuals is for Parliament not the police. My noble friend Lord Hurd articulated that at Second Reading as follows:"““But Ministers should not suspend their own powers of judgment, or come to Parliament telling us that it is the view of the police or the agencies so we must accept it. Nor should the police urge Parliament to suspend its views or judgment, but that is what has been happening””.—[Official Report, 21/11/05; col. 1402.]" I hope that the House will resist the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.