---

Counterterrorism

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to her, too, for the more detailed explanation that she gave me in expectation of this Statement. We also welcome cross-party consultation about measures to tackle terrorism. I fully concur with the sentiments and reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. That is the right way in which to proceed. The British public rightly expect that on an issue of such importance parties will work together rather than create synthetic points of difference. Equally, we welcome the wider consultation, referred to in the Statement, with civil liberty organisations and other relevant bodies. There is another reason why a consensus on terrorism legislation is important. If agreement is reached, it will send a clear message that the country is united in its approach to safety and security. Terrorists who wish to harm our country will have no comfort from any one of us. The process of consultation is attractive because it will allow us to identify where cross-party agreement is possible. We must also accept that there will be grey areas where consensus will be possible if proposals advocated by the Government are based on clear and compelling evidence. It is equally important that we achieve the right balance between rights, liberties and security measures. That is particularly important when the effect of both the language and policy of our anti-terrorist strategy can have such an impact on the opinions of precisely the communities whose co-operation we need to counter terrorism. We also welcome the fact that this consultation will lead to draft legislative proposals. We should seek cross-party support before a Bill is put before Parliament. There is a need to recognise the limitations of a consultative process. There are bound to be matters on which cross-party support cannot be reached. However, I am glad that the Minister identified issues for consultation. I need not repeat them, but I offer our views on at least four of them. On pre-charge detention of 90 days, 28 days or something in between, we have yet to see any compelling evidence that this is necessary. Such a departure from the principle of habeas corpus should be considered only if there is overwhelming evidence available at the consultation. On intercept evidence in courts, the Government are aware that we supported the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. This is vital if we are to focus on terror convictions. While there is merit in the Privy Council committee, it must not be used as a delaying tactic. We stress the need for an independent chair. A better way would be for the group to be asked to find a way on how such evidence could be admitted in court without jeopardising the work of our security services. On pre-charge questioning of suspects, we have been advocating this change. As for control orders, however, it is clear that they are not working. Six controlees have absconded. Even John Reid has said that they are full of holes. It will not help to tinker around with this legislation—we need a fresh approach. Overall, we are broadly supportive of other measures and proposals, but we need to look at draft legislation as part of the consultative process. At this stage, I shall simply ask the Minister to indicate when the Government expect my noble friend Lord Carlile to report. My noble friend has pointed the way forward in a number of media interviews, and this may lead us to a road map towards a proper consensus.