---

Counter-Terrorism Bill

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The provision is far-reaching in its consequences and we have to take that point on board. We have heard about international comparisons, but, as ever, the Government have failed to address the fundamental point that other common law countries across the globe do not need more then one week for pre-charge detention. Why do we need six in this country? Why are our police forces so incompetent—that is the only conclusion one can draw from the Government's measures—that they need six times longer than most other police forces in other common law countries? Again, no case has been made by the Government. Their argument against Liberty's figures is even weaker when one considers that the Government have admitted, at the Dispatch Box and in written parliamentary answers, that they have not undertaken a similar comparison. They have done no research of real worth on the matter. The force of their argument that such comparisons are not valid does not stand up to the test of scrutiny. Another of my concerns is the suppressed premise in the background to the debate that, deep down, many people are afraid that a suspect released too soon might use their freedom to commit an atrocity. Supposedly, 42 days' detention is needed to prevent another 7/7. But that argument is completely misguided. The purpose of the 42-day proposal is to prolong an investigation after a plot has been discovered or is suspected. It is not to prevent it. The police, the authorities and the security services already have enough powers to deal with an imminent terrorist strike. They do not need those powers; prevention is not the purpose of the 42 days. For one thing, the police could charge a suspect with acts preparatory to terrorism. Meanwhile, surveillance and intelligence gathering could and would continue if a suspect was released back into the community. So let us scotch once and for all the idea that 42 days' detention is needed to prevent another terrorist outrage. That is not its sole function. Briefly, I also take exception to the argument that, because the police have come close to the existing limit on a number of occasions, it is incumbent on the House to allow more time for holding suspects without charge. It might be that sufficient information was obtained earlier and that the police were holding a person for the sake of further questioning, given that post-charge questioning is not generally possible. However, simply because time is used does not mean that it is needed. As for the safeguards, they are weak to the point of being meaningless. Let us take the judicial safeguards first. The hearing before a judge cannot be a meaningful adversarial process. The range of issues that a judge can consider is limited to whether the investigation is proceeding at a reasonable rate and the likelihood of new evidence being brought forward. That is a very low threshold to cross. A judge will not be asked to consider a suspect's likely guilt or innocence in relation to any specific offence, so the individual in question will not have the opportunity to defend himself. Indeed, he might not even be there. The role of the courts is to judge evidence in relation to an offence, not to supervise a police investigation. As for the parliamentary safeguards, the mechanism proposed is both illogical and inappropriate. It is illogical when triggered in response to an individual case, because the higher pre-charge detention applies to all suspects held under anti-terrorism legislation, even if their case does not justify such an extension. The mechanism is also inappropriate, because it is not the role of Parliament to assess whether an individual should be deprived of their liberty, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions. Hon. Members should not be asked to instigate procedures to try to fulfil that function. Would we allow, for example, an accused person to come to the Bar of the House and put his side of the story? The last time that occurred was in the 1950s. Are we going to instigate such a procedure again? I do not think so. Would we have secret sessions, to allow the security services or a Minister to present their case freely? That has not happened since the second world war, and I see no proposals on the Table for it to happen again. The proposed safeguard is almost worthless and meaningless. In truth, no concession or safeguard is likely to be adequate, because to detain someone on the basis of suspicion alone is a fundamental breach of liberty. It is, effectively, to reverse the presumption of innocence in English common law. We have to ask ourselves why it is that we need 42 days. My concern is that, for the reasons set out in what has, overall, been an informed and intelligent debate this afternoon, we risk doing the terrorists' job for them. There is no evidence to suggest that the measure is needed. The international comparisons would suggest that we are making a big mistake if we extend from 28 days. We also risk making the mistake of producing a Bill that would be counter-productive in trying to solicit information from the communities from which we need help. For all those reasons, I urge the House not to extend to 42 days—to dig in deep and realise that our hard-won civil liberties cannot be traded in on the back of Government misinformation and evidence that is simply not there. I urge the House to give that great thought indeed.