---

Counter-Terrorism Bill

The clear implication of what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said was that people could have been charged earlier. That is fundamentally wrong, and what is more, he has had personal assurances from senior police officers that that was not the case. We have also rightly heard concerns about the circumstances in which people would be detained. People have claimed that detainees would not be able to see their families, or that they would not have cooling-off periods. That is wrong. Anybody detained will be told on arrest the grounds for that arrest. Any hearings for extended detention would include specific details of the investigation. Those detained may receive visits from friends, family and others likely to take an interest in their welfare. In any 24-hour period, the detainee must be allowed at least eight hours for rest, free from questioning, thus providing the cooling-off period that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) suggested did not exist. Detainees should be offered exercise, and cells must be cleaned, heated and ventilated. To suggest that those things would not happen, as some have done, is also wrong. A further misconception in this debate—and a disappointment to me—has been the suggestion that there can be no appropriate role for Parliament in this process. I have understandably been challenged about what Parliament will be able to debate in such circumstances. First, contrary to the contention advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), the statement made by the Home Secretary to Parliament will need to be clear that a grave and exceptional terrorist threat has occurred or is occurring. New clause 32 makes it clear that legal advice with which the Home Secretary can properly be satisfied will need to be made available to Parliament in order to support that debate. Parliament will be able to debate the general security threat; the progress of the investigation; the police numbers involved; the number of suspects detained; the outline of the plot; the what, why and when; the number of countries involved; whether the Home Secretary's decision was properly founded; and whether she had indeed received reports from the police and the DPP. That would be a full debate. I believe in the role of Parliament, and we have embedded that safeguard in our proposals.