---

Counter-Terrorism Bill

That is absolutely right. Offering compensation seems to me a tacit admission that there is a fault with the Bill. I mentioned pragmatism earlier. Let me be perfectly honest and say that, despite my regard for civil liberties, if proper, urgent and telling evidence had been produced of the need to bring in the proposed law, I would seriously have had to reconsider the position, take off my civil libertarian hat or wig and start thinking carefully. However, nothing of that sort has been produced, including during the whole period of the Public Bill Committee. I have heard nothing to persuade me even the slightest way towards the Government's view. We know that the Law Society has made its view clear, as has the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As I said, I shall not mention the various bodies that have provided evidence, but I stress again that when it comes to evidence, I have seen nothing of a persuasive nature. When the Home Secretary was interviewed on Radio 4 a few months ago, she admitted that she had no idea at all how many days were required. I intervened on the right hon. Lady earlier, but I am none the wiser. If, as we are told, the alleged plots are becoming more and more complex to unravel, why is the magic figure now half that of the previously recommended 90 days? Can anyone explain that? In evidence to the Public Bill Committee on 22 April, Sir Ian Blair said:"““There is no magic figure; that is absolutely fair.””" He went on:"““Our job is to suggest that sooner rather than later something will happen that will make 28 days insufficient. The Government have suggested 42 days and that is a matter for Parliament to consider.””––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 21-22, Q26.]" I say to Sir Ian Blair that that is hardly evidence on which I shall act to erode civil liberties.