Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (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, yet again, we have had an extraordinary debate in which there have been some very powerful speeches. I reassure the noble Lord that when the Government put forward the 90 days proposal it did so because, on the evidence placed before them from all sources, that was the Government’s view on the most appropriate response that should be made to keep this country safe. The evidence was powerful; it was referred to extensively in Committee. Today we have had it highlighted once again in some very powerful speeches, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who opened the debate in an exemplary manner. Noble Lords who have said that there is no one perfect solution to the conundrum in which we as a nation find ourselves are quite right. There is a huge debate, a proper debate on where the line should be drawn between the security and safety of our people as a nation and the rights and freedoms that we as individuals have rightly come to expect. All those voices that have argued that individual freedom should not be capriciously or inappropriately curtailed are right. That principled approach has been maintained in the stance taken by the Government. This Government, contrary to what some may assert, have been unfailing in their adherence to the rule of law and to the promotion of individual civil liberties. We have seen that in the introduction of the Human Rights Act, the data protection legislation, freedom of information legislation and many other provisions that have been brought forward under this administration. I hope no one in this House doubts that the Government have taken these issues very, very seriously indeed. We also take into account the concerns that have been so powerfully expressed by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, among others, and the words of the noble Lord, Lord Condon. However, we know from the evidence that we have that it would be right to look at practitioners such as the Assistant Commissioner, Andy Hayman, who, as the most senior anti-terrorist police officer, has the current onerous responsibility of discharging, on behalf of our country, the security investigations that are necessary to keep us all safe. That evidence is powerful and cogent. The Government, as your Lordships know, argued strongly in the other place that 90 days was the appropriate time for investigations to take place. Taking on board the things that were said by a number of my noble friends, not least by my noble friends Lady Symons and Lady Ramsay and others, that is to be reviewed appropriately every seven days. However, the other place spoke. It did not agree with the proposals put forward by the Government. In the other place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary undertook that the Government would not seek to overturn that decision and I do not resile from that tonight. This side of this House has a free vote. Your Lordships will have to decide how that is exercised. Noble Lords opposite will take their own course. I should make it plain that I and those who sit on the Government Front Bench will not vote on this matter. We will abstain. I shall answer a few questions that have specifically been raised with me. There was the suggestion that the provisions now before your Lordships are simply a response to the events of 7 July. I make it plain that they are not. Noble Lords will remember that we had a number of debates before 7 July when these issues were contemplated and we agreed that we would bring forward legislation as soon as reasonably practicable to consider these matters. We also argued on a number of occasions that the circumstances in which we found ourselves in 2005 were very different from the circumstances that had prevailed two or three years earlier and that we would need to respond creatively to those changes. The Government would argue that the proposals that we put forward are proportionate and right. I reject absolutely any suggestion that this country and what we have done could properly and fairly be compared with the situation that prevailed in South Africa.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c1234-5 
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