---

Counter-Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 34: 34: After Clause 33, insert the following new Clause— ““Extension of detention under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (1) Part 3 of Schedule 8 to The Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (extension of detention under section 41) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 29 (warrants of further detention) after sub-paragraph (6) insert— ““(7) Nothing in this Part is to be read as requiring the judicial authority to act in a manner inconsistent with the right of the specified person to a fully judicial procedure under Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.”” (3) In paragraph 31 (notice) after paragraph (d) insert— ““(e) a statement of the suspicion which forms the basis for the person’s original arrest and continued detention, and (f) the gist of the material on which the suspicion is based.”” (4) Before paragraph (a) of paragraph 32(1) (grounds for extension) insert— ““(za) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of a terrorist offence,””. (5) For sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 33 (representation) substitute— ““(1) The person to whom an application relates shall be entitled— (a) to appear in person before the judicial authority and make oral representations about the application, (b) to be legally represented by counsel at the hearing, (c) to legal aid for such representation, (d) to be represented by a special advocate at any closed part of the hearing of the application, and (e) through his representative, to cross examine the investigating officer.”” (6) After sub-paragraph (3)(b) of paragraph 33 insert— ““(ba) if the judicial authority is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the exclusion of the person or his representative is necessary in order to avoid any of the harms set out in paragraph 34(2)(a) to (g).”””” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 34 is in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Dubs. I imagine that the Committee has now registered that we are all members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 reflect concerns that the committee have felt for some considerable time about the safeguards that are in place when pre-charge detention of between 14 and 28 days is being authorised. The Minister will no doubt be grateful to know that these are probing amendments through which we seek his views on what the committee sees as the need for more adequate safeguards. The committee has done some detailed work on the arrangements surrounding pre-charge detention. The Minister is no doubt aware of this work and has read it with great interest. I shall say a little more about the detail. Between 14 and 28 days, if detention is to be continued, there has to be a hearing before a judge,and it is the nature of these hearings that has caused the committee concern. In its 25th report of the Session—its 12th report on counterterrorism—it says: "““We do not accept that the current arrangements for judicial authorisation of extended pre-charge detention satisfy the stringent requirements either of habeas corpus or Article 5 ECHR””." The committee has identified three basic problems. First, the suspect and his or her lawyer can be excluded from the hearing, so parts of the hearing can be closed to them. Secondly, information can be put before the judge that neither the suspect nor his or her lawyer can see. Thirdly, the committee was concerned about the narrowness of the questions that the court is required to answer when it decides whether or not to authorise further detention. The committee’s second report of this Session therefore recommended a statutory regime to govern the hearings that give warrants for further detention. We suggested that there should be more stringent requirements about the information that must be contained in the statutory notice given to a suspect before such a hearing; that there should be measures to define more closely the power to withhold information from the suspect and his or her lawyer; that there should be provisions for special advocates to represent the interests of the suspect at any closed part of the hearing; that there should be express provision for the right of the suspect to cross-examine the investigation officer; and that any restrictions on disclosure or participation are subject to the overriding requirement that the hearing of the application be fair. We have attempted to put those requirements into our amendment. I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to enter this discussion with us about how far the safeguards for extending detention from 14 to 28 days are satisfactory and in accordance with our human rights requirements. I beg to move.