Counter-Terrorism Bill
Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2008.
Further written evidence to be reported to the House
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Good morning, and welcome to our first witnesses of the day and to all other interested observers. For the record, may I ask our witnesses to formally introduce themselves?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. My name is John Bercow. I am MP for Buckingham and co-Chairman of this Committee. In agreement with members of the Committee, we have decided to focus first, for up to half an hour, on matters other than pre-charge detention without trial. Thereafter, or as soon as questions on other matters have been exhausted, we will move on to the important matter of pre-charge detention without trial. Thank you for coming. We will go straight into questions.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Good morning. What is Liberty’s view on gathering and sharing information? It is clear in the various clauses that one of the purposes, at least, is to bring the security services within a statutory framework. However, the powers are extensive, and include not only the prevention of crime but the use of information for national security purposes, or for the purposes of the security services themselves. First, does Liberty have a view on that in principle? Secondly, if there is anything that causes you anxiety, should something be done about it?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Thank you. Perhaps this cannot be answered now, and we may have to tease it out at a later stage, but I wondered what instances might exist where national security issues were not related to the prevention of crime, if one wished to make use of samples.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
May I follow up what is implied by that? It is something that has concerned me for some time. Over recent years, various Acts of Parliament have conferred considerable exceptional powers on the police and security services to deal with an exceptional circumstance: terrorism. In your organisation’s experience, have those powers been used within the limits that Parliament expected?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Gareth, forgive me. We are trying to sort the system out, but in my view the acoustics are not brilliant this morning. Could you speak up a little?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
What are Liberty’s views, if any, on plea bargaining or plea mitigation?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
Oppression?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
On a similar theme, do you have concerns or views on post-charge questions?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
That is an extremely helpful answer and I think the Committee appreciates it very much. I recognise that you are setting the scene, but I gently make the point that as competition for questions intensifies we shall need to have tight answers.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Shami, you mentioned the need for judicial safeguards if questioning on more serious charges was going to take place. Can you expand on what those should be?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
And that would be sufficient to satisfy you?
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
I would be interested in hearing your views on the use of intercept as evidence.
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
That was a very interesting response, thank you very much. A supplementary point to that is that the security agencies have serious concerns about the matter. The concerns are not so much about the intention to use the evidence to convict people, but that, by using it, gaps in their knowledge would be shown. It would show where there are weaknesses, as inevitably there are. Do you not recognise that that could be a serious problem for the security agencies?
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
The fact is that, in our communities today, Muslims as well as non-Muslims are part of the security agencies. We could be showing not only gaps, but a trace to those people. Is that not a serious concern?
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
Finally—
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order.
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
The technology—
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Is it a sentence?
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
It is a crucial question. It is three words.
Is it not the case that the technology is becoming so complex—it is six words—that tracing will become a near impossibility?
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
Technology and tracing.
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
I think that Lord Carlile has been mooting this idea for two or three years. It is not something that has come upon us all of a sudden. We are still talking about intercept. No doubt you have observed the evidence of Sir Ian Blair earlier this week. He was quite dismissive of intercept evidence, saying that there were numerous legislative and administrative problems and all manner of other problems with it. Roughly, what he said was it is not going to happen in the next few years. What do you think is the real objection? If the United States is able to do it without compromising the sources or giving secrets away about their technology, am I being simplistic in saying that we should be looking at it immediately?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
To be absolutely fair to Sir Ian Blair, he said that it would be very useful, but it is not likely to happen because of problems. That is slightly different from what I said, to be fair to him.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
Can Liberty comment on the suggestion that there has been a tendency by some to hype things up in the press and to use the media rather inappropriately prior to bringing in controversial legislation? An example is the apparent thwarting of a plot to hijack planes and fly them into Canary Wharf, which was apparently leaked by the Security Service just before the Queen’s Speech in 2004 and about which we did not hear anything more. There is also the timing of this legislation. Is that a concern of yours?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Shami, make your criticism, but do not allow yourself to be diverted from the contents of the Bill by the question, however well intentioned.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
Just to follow up on intercepts, is it not rather odd that the Bill allows intercept evidence in asset freezing? With all the concerns about technology leaks and gaps, surely if that principle is strong and holds true, why is it being ignored in the Bill?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
We now move to pre-charge detention without trial.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
You may have seen what Sir Ian Blair said to the Committee on Tuesday. I think there was an acknowledgement that there had been no necessity for detention beyond 28 days—there seems to be some dispute as to exactly what periods are in fact needed, but we will leave that to one side—but he felt it was essential because it was highly likely that the need was going to arise in the not-too-distant future. Does that in any way affect your judgment on the issue? You have taken a clear line that in your view more than 28 days is not required.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
In a document produced by Liberty in February 2008, you said:
“The proposal would certainly lead to innocent people being detained for 42 days and then released without charge.”
Given that any extension from 28 to 42 days would need the DPP’s support and that there are seven-day applications to a High Court judge, do you not accept that that is a reasonable safeguard to ensure that human liberties are not compromised by this?
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
You said that it is inevitable that more people are arrested than are charged. I accept that. What you are saying, in fact, is that the enhanced thresholds of the likelihood of being charged are not met in this process. Would you not agree that, because there are enhanced thresholds, presided over by people, certainly on the basis of the evidence that we had from the DPP, who are not even convinced that they need them, to say that this would, in your words, certainly lead to people being detained without trial, is a disproportionate evaluation of the process?
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
The point that I am making is that people will be arrested and some of them will be released, but given the hoops that frankly have to be jumped through to go over 28 days, the likelihood of that happening is small, particularly because it is operated by people who are sceptical about even the application of the rise. You are saying that it would certainly lead to innocent people being detained.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
Do you not accept that that is a disproportionate interpretation?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
The Government, from the Prime Minister down, have alleged that Liberty is in favour of using the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for this purpose. Indeed, we heard the Minister refer to that yesterday. Will you explain your views on the 2004 Act in relation to the subject now under discussion?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
You will be aware of the ninth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which says that the proposed extension would amount to a breach of article 5. Do you have a view on that?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Let us go back to the Civil Contingencies Act for a moment. It is not the case, is it, that there is clear legal opinion that it could be used to extend pre-charge detention in terms of whether pre-charge detention amounts to criminal proceedings? You will know that criminal proceedings cannot be altered by the CCA; do you accept at least that there is that debate, and that the matter is not clear cut?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
In your brief to the Committee, you describe Mr. Pannick’s view as unequivocal. You say that Liberty has obtained an unequivocal legal opinion from Pannick which confirms this.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
But his judgment says simply that “the better view” is that criminal proceedings might well come under the CCA. That is hardly unequivocal is it?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
I take that point, but the characterisation of Pannick’s advice as unequivocal is not really accurate is it, if it is just “the better view” that criminal proceedings are covered by the CCA? I am talking not about the wider point about the legislation, but simply about the characterisation of his opinion, which is hardly unequivocal when you read it.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
What part of the move from 14 days to 28 do you regard as being so damaging? You have characterised it as an arms race, so this is clearly the next phase of the arms race, and your characterisation goes to prior extensions. Are you seriously saying that we have gained nothing of substance by going from 14 to 28 days, as was this House’s will?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
With respect, I am asking about your negative characterisation of what has prevailed since we have gone from 14 to 28 days. I do not want a potted history of Liberty’s angst over its views. My question is specific. You made a very negative characterisation of the shift from 14 to 28 days. You described it as an arms race, with the clear implication that nothing of substance, judicially or otherwise, has accrued from that shift, and that the world was a much better place when the period was 14 days. Are you seriously suggesting that it has not been shown that 28 days is necessary? I do not want the potted history of Liberty; I just want an answer on that point please.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Let us be clear. You say that 28 days is not counter-productive. Is that right? You just said that 28 days was adequate.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
I will come on to that, if I may.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
No, with respect, not in relation to the extension from 14 to 28 days.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
With respect. That—
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Last question at this point.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Yes, at this point, and perhaps if we come back to that we will get some answers.
I want to touch on the international comparisons. You made great play—quite rightly—of how special the notion of charge is in UK jurisdiction. However, whoever has done your international research has used that charge equivalent in the most erroneous fashion possible, producing research that bears no scrutiny at all. If you look even at Justice’s summary of the Kercher case in Italy, you do not see anywhere in their deliberations—in paragraph 58 of the document that they presented to us on Tuesday—the definition of charge as you describe it in paragraph 9 of your document:
“Before charge a person is not formally accused of any criminal offence.”
The three defendants in the Kercher case have not been accused of or charged with anything yet, but they have been in custody for six months. Do you stand by your pretty little graph—however misleading—of international comparisons?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
I do not, actually.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Shami, please.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
No.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
We now have under 25 minutes. Several colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. As always, I want to get you all in, but a certain self-denying ordinance is required.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
Do you not think it very spurious and somewhat naive for the Government to try to connect days to risk solutions? For example, “If we had 14 days, we would get most of the terror plots. If we had 28, we would get nearly all of them.” They want to go further and further. It shows a complete naivety about good counter-terrorism practice, which is not just about days. You can never rule out the risk. There would be incidents even if you had 120 days of detention.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
When people refute the claim that there is a similarity to internment, would you say that they are missing the point? Internment has the same naivety as the detention of a group of people who are high-risk or have certain links based on intelligence rather than evidence, as Sir Ian Blair himself said in evidence. Are we in danger of going back into the same naivety again?
Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)
To Mr. Llwyd you said that you thought the existing 28 days was adequate. However, both Sir Ian Blair and ACPO said that they have convincing evidence of the mounting complexity and global nature of investigations. They said that they were already pushing on 28 days and felt that very soon they would need to exceed that limit and have to come back to us. Do you accept that that scenario is near, and do you not agree with Sir Ian that it would be much better to introduce well-thought out legislation now rather than as a knee-jerk reaction?
Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)
To come back to the basics, you were quite right when you said that you do not have the burden and responsibilities of representing constituents, and we do. Given that we have the duty to frame legislation in a way that strikes a balance between rights and responsibilities, do you accept that the civil liberties of the public who travel on public transport are equal to, and are worth protecting as much as, those in pre-charge detention?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
You talk about consensus. One of the activities of the past year or so has been an attempt to build a cross-party consensus on the most appropriate tools for fighting terrorism effectively. Components of that are in previous statutes and also in this Bill. We are talking about the lower order, but serious offences that can now be charged; the reduction in charging threshold; and post-charge questioning with appropriate safeguards. Many of us would have liked to see intercept as well. Could that package not achieve the objective that we share, which is of early charge rather than detention without charge?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
May I put to you, perhaps as a devil’s advocate against both your case and mine, a point that has been put to me? It is all very well having these arrangements that enable an earlier charge to be pressed, post-preferment of that charge and questioning on possibly more serious charges, but the holding charge is alien to prosecutorial practice in this country and is something that they rather preciously do not wish to engage with.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
May I give one other example which is critical to the Government’s case? Very often they say that one of the complexities is the difficulty of dealing with computer encryption and finding the key. I am at a loss to understand why the legislation that the House passed to require production of the key to encrypted material has not been more often used. Sir Ian said on Tuesday that one of the reasons was that because the tariff on it was so low, a court was unlikely to hold someone on remand for refusing to produce the key to suspected terrorist material. Have you any comments on that?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. We have less than 12 minutes left. I do now need short questions and short answers.
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
You called earlier for more proportionate measures rather than ratcheting up the days of pre-charge detention and said, with a heavy heart, that you had considered the Civil Contingencies Act. I served on the Bill in 2003-04 and I seem to recall being told that it was precisely not about terrorism and being reassured on that point because we would be bringing forward proposals later. Liberty’s criticism of the Act is that it is without an appropriate consideration of proportionality and that it allows sweeping draconian powers. Is not the real attraction of those who put forward the Civil Contingencies Act that that lack of proportionality would make it easier to go to judicial review and to stop any extension beyond 28 days and the introduction of 58 days under the Act?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Sorry, Shami, but we are running out of time. You have been extremely forthcoming witnesses and I very much appreciate that, but we must have tight answers to tight questions, otherwise people will not be able to pose their questions and that would not be right. Please, Shami, give a brief answer.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
This question is turning away to another subject that I do not think we have touched on, which is coroners’ inquests. There is a proposal in the Bill that is designed to remove the need to have a jury in coroners’ inquests. The apparent justification is that that is a necessity because intelligence material or secret material might have to be placed before a coroner in such circumstances. What is your opinion of that proposal and, in particular, do you have a view about the difficulty of getting vetted juries, which one can see from past experience in criminal trials of a national security nature?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Do you believe that the proposal to go beyond 28 days will be compatible with the ECHR?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
You heard the evidence on Tuesday from the Director of Public Prosecutions, who said that, whatever his views about that proposal, he thought that it would be compatible with the ECHR. You disagree with the DPP on this, do you?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
He was asked if he thought that, if pre-charge detention went beyond 28 days, that extension would be compatible with the ECHR, and he said that, in his view, it would be compatible. However, you are saying that, in your view, it would not be compatible.
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
I just wanted your view on that. We have had your view, and it is different from the DPP’s.
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
If Parliament agreed to the pre-charge detention proposals, and the police and the DPP subsequently asked for the higher limit, would you contest that?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
If the pre-charge detention proposals were passed by Parliament, and the police and the DPP, as a consequence of that change of the law, made representations to the Home Secretary and then asked for the higher limit, would you accept that position or would you challenge it?
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)
Would you challenge it? That is the question.
Russell Brown (Labour, Dumfries and Galloway)
You have given an indication that the response from the wider public in your contacts with them is that all this is just the Government talking tough. Would you be prepared to share with the Committee—not now, but perhaps in writing—details of the questions that you asked the wider public and, if possible, the kind of people involved. Was it just Mr. and Mrs. Joe Public whom you spoke to?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
How many days do you think pre-charge detention should be?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
Yes. Should it be as in other jurisdictions—two days, three days, four days?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
So you are saying it should be 14 days?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
But it is your place to say, apparently, that it should not go beyond 28 days, so why can it not be your place to say that it should be 14 days or seven days? I just need to know what Liberty’s position is on this.
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
So, why—
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
May I just make one point, because we are running out of time? Ken Macdonald, the DPP, said:
“For most terrorist cases now, the whole purpose of terrorism legislation is to intervene as early in the process as possible. You cannot arrest a suicide bomber after he has blown himself up.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 59, Q156.]
Sir Ian Blair was saying that the police take people into pre-charge detention just on intelligence because they are so scared that if they do not, something terrible will happen. I think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt if they need to do that, because they need to build up the evidence.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Shami Chakrabarti and Gareth Crossman, thank you very much for sparing your time and sharing your expertise with us this morning.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I welcome our expert witness and other interested observers to this afternoon’s evidence session. For the record, I ask our witness to formerly introduce himself.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. As the Committee knows, we have 45 minutes with you and have agreed that for up to 15 minutes questions will focus on matters other than pre-charge detention without trial.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Good afternoon, Lord Carlile. I want to touch on post-charge questioning and, in particular, on whether judicial supervision of that process is needed. Do you wish to express a view on that?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
I do not think that there is huge disagreement about that. Its use would be limited, but there seems to be a unanimous view—I think that this is correct—that it would be a useful extra. The concern expressed is that it is a departure from normal practice. At that stage, usually the person will be awaiting trial, so post-charge questioning could be oppressive. It might be sensible, therefore, to regulate it by requiring an application to the courts.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
I turn then to data sharing, on which the Bill contains a considerable amount of new legislation. As we perceive it—I think that we have probably understood it correctly—part of it will bring the work of the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service on to a statutory footing in this area. Nevertheless, in some ways, the powers involved represent a radical departure and envisage the ability to share information, explicitly on a statutory basis, for reasons other than crime prevention or dealing with crime. The concept of national security is not necessarily highly defined. Do you have a view on that?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
My Lord, I have asked every witness for their comments about plea bargaining or plea mitigation, and we have had interesting and varied answers. May I hear what your views are?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
Liberty made the entirely reasonable point that, while it understood the need and supported the theory, at least, of plea bargaining, there had to be “justice”—its word, not mine—for the victims of the crime. For the sake of argument, suppose that a 40-year sentence was reduced to four. How would that sit with you in terms of the perceived fairness for those survivors, relatives or whoever, who were expecting a heavier sentence?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
I have had experience in front of a Diplock court.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
May I return briefly to the question of post-charge questioning? You have said that you are comfortable with that, and for a code of practice to be put in place to deal with it, with or without judicial oversight. Should there be a different approach if the post-charge questioning is about a new matter, rather than that with which the person was originally charged?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
Lord Carlile, what is your view of the proposals in the draft Bill concerning coroners’ inquests? How would the rights of the bereaved families be properly protected? That is question one. May I ask a second and similar one? What about the public interest in ensuring that the state and public bodies are held to account and are seen to be held to account?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
With regard to the issue of transparency and of public bodies being held to account, special advocates deal with the bereaved family aspect, but inevitably there is a feeling that things are going on behind closed doors.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Two colleagues have indicated that they want to come in on matters other than pre-charge. We are about to reach our limit, but I will take those two on the understanding that the questions are brief. I know that our witness will be succinct; he has already demonstrated that in his answers.
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
I am interested in the way in which people are talking more and more about using intercept as evidence. I would be grateful if you could give us your view about how intercept evidence might be useful, limited or perhaps not used at all.
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
May I ask one further question?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Is it just a sentence?
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
Yes. I have been led to believe that the technology that is used is becoming much more complex and that it will ensure that tracing will become so much more difficult that intercept will become less and less available to us.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I would like to have asked whether your view is that the safeguards for post-charge questioning, particularly the lack of an extant text of the changes to the basic codes of conduct, were satisfactory, but I will instead ask a very specific question about part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000. You drew attention in your report to your experience of its operation in Northern Ireland. However, it has been put to me that the fact that that has now been repealed as part of the normalisation process means that its reintroduction in Northern Ireland will be seen as a regressive step, albeit as part of a UK-wide provision. Do you recognise that and would you care to comment on it?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
With regard to your prediction for the use of intercept, Lord Carlile, could you clarify that the use of surveillance transcripts or footage has been incredibly useful in achieving convictions? In the example that you used of two men in the park, their conversation would be under surveillance, probably direct if it was a public place, and would therefore be admissible in a court of law. Is not the nub of the problem that the differences between the definitions of surveillance and interception need to be re-examined before we debate whether it is admissible?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. We will now move on to pre-charge detention without trial.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Lord Carlile, you are aware of the issues and debate that have taken place on the matter. Why do you feel that this is a proportionate response to the threat? In particular, may I press you on the point about which we have heard, that a lot of evidence is being required on a contingency basis rather than for actual use, at present?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
May I come back on the point that you have raised about there being two cases in which the charges were brought very close to the end of the 28-day period; I cannot remember whether it was 26 or 27 days—
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Twenty seven. There has been a difficulty with that. You may be able to look into it and help the Committee by writing to us.
I choose my words with care in identifying the cases, as I am extremely conscious that both may well still be sub judice. It has been suggested not, I wish to emphasise, that the police somehow deliberately delayed charging, but that, as it turned out at the end of the process, it was not a case in which it could be said that 27 days were needed to formulate the case. The evidence on which the charges were eventually brought was, in fact, available considerably earlier in the process. In saying that, I make no criticism of the police and the fact that they may have wished to have looked at other aspects in the intervening period. Are you able to help the Committee on that matter?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
The example of Kafeel Ahmed is very interesting. The man was in a Jeep Cherokee armed with explosives that crashed through the doors of the terminal building at Glasgow airport. Had he regained consciousness, is it inconceivable that he might have been charged with an offence and therefore been remanded in custody?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
My point is that if with the provision for post-charge questioning there was no problem with continuing questioning, surely it is inconceivable that that individual would have been released, whether after 28, 42 or 90 days, without charge under those circumstances.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I accept that.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I am not saying that. I am saying simply that you do not need an extension of pre-charge detention to maintain somebody like Mr. Kafeel Ahmed in custody without facing charge.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
Earlier we spoke to representatives of Liberty. I quoted to them a publication in which Liberty said that there would certainly be people arrested and then discharged after 42 days, thus incurring a loss of liberty and potentially more devastating consequences for their standing in the community, their jobs and so on. When I challenged that, they stated that under the 14 to 28-day provisions, people under the process of judicial scrutiny had been arrested and then released. Are you satisfied that the proposals in this legislation will pre-empt, as far as humanly possible, any possibility of anybody being detained for 42 days and then discharged?
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
So you are satisfied that the proposals are proportionate in the balance of securing convictions and inhibiting—
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
During our deliberations we have talked about the comparisons, which might be made by our enemies, between an extension beyond 28 days and internment. What are you views, please?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
Thank you. That was helpful.
There is absolutely no doubt—no one in this room would feel that it was so—that what is being proposed bears any close resemblance to internment. The fact remains that the word “internment” is deeply emotive and pejorative. Would you accept that, whatever we do and say, our enemies will interpret it as that?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
I have a couple of questions. On the issue of pre-charge detention periods and those that apply in other countries, should we be taking into account the practice in other countries and comparing a proposal for 42 days with what exists in other countries? The report produced by Liberty identifies that the UK has by far and away the longest pre-charge detention period. Do you feel that such views are justified?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
A number of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. I need them to be very tight in their questions.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
I would like to bring you back, Lord Carlile, to the judicial oversight of the detention without charge, the extended detention, and your comments about internment. Currently, I am at a loss to see what the judge will be doing in the oversight, as one of the reasons given for early detention is that we are acting on intelligence and we need time to convert that intelligence into evidence. Yesterday Sir Ian Blair said that we often make arrests where we have lots of intelligence but nothing to submit as evidence and we need that extra time. Setting aside your suggestion of a more investigative judge to test the evidence, how will the current system allow the judge overseeing the process to test the intelligence put before him?
Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)
This is not a legal point, so please indulge me. Many witnesses have claimed that the Bill’s provisions would, if passed, amount to a propaganda coup for Islamic fundamentalists, and for al-Qaeda in particular. Do you have a view on that?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
Your views on the use of intercept are well known; we heard them earlier. Could you distinguish between the non-use of intercept to collect evidence to convict a terrorist and its use, permitted in the Bill, to freeze assets?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
If I have read the Bill correctly, intercept evidence will be permissible in connection with asset freezing.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
We have just over a minute left: a short question from Dominic Grieve, and a short answer from our witness, please.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
To come back to the 28-day versus 42-day issue, we have heard from you about the brig in the United States and inquisitorial methods in France, but when Sir Ken Macdonald came here on Tuesday he was absolutely clear that he was satisfied with the system that we have in this country, in particular that we do not have holding charges—that is not something he relies on. He said:
“I have said this on a number of occasions...we do not perceive any need for the period of 28 days to be increased. Of course, people have argued to the contrary, and you have heard some evidence to the contrary. Various scenarios have been put up, and anything is possible, but the question is whether it is remotely likely.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 53, Q136.]
Why do you think that you are better placed than he to do an analysis of whether 28 days is sufficient?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Lord Carlile, I am extremely grateful to you, as I think the Committee is, for your time, your expertise and, if I may say so, your exemplary succinctness. We will move on to the next witness and we need a speedy turnaround for that purpose. Thank you very much.
Welcome to our next witness. For the record, would you be good enough, please, formally to introduce yourself?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. We will go straight into questioning. In view of who you are and the evidence that you have given, we will start by focusing on part 6 of the Bill.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Good afternoon. Part 6 of the Bill deals with a completely new procedure for coroners’ inquests in terrorism cases. When did your organisation first know of the Government’s intention to legislate in this fashion?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
So, you were not consulted at all on this part of the Bill before it came out, were you?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
From your organisation’s perspective, and in view of what a coroner’s inquest is designed to achieve, do you think that this proposal in the Bill will enable the transparency and fairness in the procedure to be preserved, or does it present you with difficulty?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
I am sure, Mr. Rebello, that you would agree that one of the strengths of the coroner’s court is the independence of the coroner.
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
What is your view, therefore, about the proposal for inquests in some circumstances to be held only before suitably trained and cleared coroners?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
Do you see it being practical?
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
Earlier, I thought I detected an implication that you think the law is in need of updating. Do you feel that is best done in the way that it has been done, by tacking measures on to a Bill on terrorism, or would you welcome and like to see a coroners Bill that deals with all sorts of issues?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
What do you think will be lost without juries, particularly in relation to the families of those involved?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Perhaps I can put the question the other way. What do you think is added by having juries?
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
Given that coroners have the power to direct that the public should be excluded from any part of the inquest in the interests of national security, do you think that the powers in the Bill are necessary at the moment?
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
I am intrigued when you say that as a coroner you might not have been told things in relation to an inquest. Will you elaborate on what sort of things they might be?
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
There is a draft coroners Bill around and a proposal is coming forward, is it not?
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
Would it not be preferable in your judgment that these proposals regarding coroners’ courts should come forward as part of a wholesale re-evaluation of the role of coroners’ courts in that legislation, rather than being taken piecemeal here?
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
One of the strengths of the system has been that coroners are independent. What is your view of the proposal that inquests in some circumstances should be held before suitably trained and cleared coroners appointed by the Secretary of State?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
We have often had the Azelle Rodney case quoted to us as an obvious example of something that is now awaiting this legislation.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
Is the society aware of other inquests that are being held over because of perceived difficulties about releasing information, which would suggest why the Government perceive this as so urgent that they must pre-empt the coroners legislation?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I appreciate that. I used to appoint coroners in my own area, so I know some of the work that they do. Have you had any discussions, formally or informally, with your colleagues who have been dealing principally with the military inquests as a result of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are there any instances from them that might suggest an urgent need for this provision?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I absolutely concur, and I am grateful to you for that. I have one last question. Taking into account the crucial role of the independent coroner’s court, if one was to accept that there might be, in terms of national security, a need to exclude some material from the public gaze, can you conceive of circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a coroner’s court to exclude material not on the grounds of national security but, as it says in the Bill,
“in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country.”?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
It is not the view of many. Thank you.
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
I have been listening carefully to your response, Mr. Rebello, and I was prompted by the thought that our security services do not exist in absentia, but actually work with other countries. If the security services say that there would be a problem if evidence was secured from another country, would you accept that it was absolutely in the interests of our national security that that information was not presented?
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
Returning to the answer that you gave to my earlier question, will you expand on your comment that the rule of law would go out of the window if there were specially appointed coroners?
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
And if they were suitably trained and cleared and if there are specific circumstances?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
This is really just a corollary of what you have just said about the position of the appointed coroner with regard to the Executive effectively appointing the judiciary. You have already suggested that you think that these provisions are probably outwith human rights legislation. I suggest that they may also be entirely in conflict with the statutory requirement for the independence of the judiciary, which is now placed in statute law. Do you agree that the fact that it is not even the Lord Chancellor who is responsible for this but the Secretary of State, by which we may infer that the Home Secretary will be responsible for certification, brings it directly into conflict?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
May I return to your important comment about the fact that there are 110 coroners, which you made in answer to the question about the ability of coroners to be designated to do this special work? Can you think of any reason why those who are appointed to be coroners around the country would not be capable, if there was some new area on which you needed training, to be trained in order to fulfil the criteria laid down in the Bill?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. Are there any further questions for our witness? There are not. Mr. Rebello, thank you very much for your time and expertise.
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
Could we have at least two minutes as a comfort break?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I am receptive to that request.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I welcome our next set of witnesses. For the record, would you please identify yourselves.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I can hear you and see the name plates, but the acoustics are poor, so I suggest that our witnesses keep the volume up during the course of the afternoon. We have up to two and a quarter hours. It is an open sitting, in which colleagues can raise anything that relates to any of the 92 clauses or six schedules in the Bill. We will begin the questioning with Dominic Grieve.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
I will turn to 42-day pre-charge detention. I hope that that does not mean that we run out of time to ask about other things.
I want to ask about the Director of Public Prosecutions’ opinion, which you will have had a strong chance of hearing. He is, after all, the person in charge of the prosecution system in this country. On top of that, because of the Government’s changes to the conduct of investigations, the Crown Prosecution Service is now embedded in the investigative process. You probably heard me read out the quote to Lord Carlile containing the Director of Public Prosecutions’ emphatic view that he is completely comfortable with 28 days’ pre-charge detention and can see no grounds for extending it—the only grounds being so hypothetical that he does not think that they are remotely likely. Why, in those circumstances, are you seeking to move to 42 days’ detention?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Nevertheless, one might have thought that he would be the person most likely to urge an extension if he considered that it prevented him, or was likely to prevent him, from being able to carry out the work on which effectively he is judged. That is, whether he can successfully prosecute those who have committed serious offences that clearly require trial, and lengthy terms of imprisonment on conviction.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
On that first point, presumably there must be agreement—and you are not suggesting otherwise—that the Government do not believe that even the extension from 14 to 28 days is an ideal arrangement under our principles of freedom under the law, because we have that on an annual renewal basis as an extraordinary power?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
I do not want to get bogged down in the legal niceties of Mr. Pannick’s opinion on the Civil Contingences Act. I would like to focus on an area where there may be some agreement. If this House and the Government wanted to, there is no reason, is there, why we could not put together a package based on the principles of the CCA, which would enable an extension in a state of emergency?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
The CCA defines circumstances in which a state of emergency can be declared, and that is potentially judicially reviewable, if that is done by the Executive rather than being sanctioned through Parliament.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Yes, forgive me. I think that that is absolutely right. The decisions made thereunder could be judicially reviewed on the basis that there was no basis for declaring a state of emergency in the first place.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Therefore, to clarify, the Bill as presented by the Government is not similar to that extent to the principles of the CCA, because the circumstances in which an extension could be taken from 28 to 42 days do not require the criteria under which a state of emergency exists under that Act.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
I can have one last bite at the cherry. I am moving on here and I apologise for doing so. I have also apologised to the Committee because I have to go early. You had the opportunity of hearing from the Coroners Society representative. Why was there no consultation with the coroners before that part of the Bill was introduced?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
It would be rather helpful to the Committee if you could amplify, “at the behest of colleagues”. What suddenly happened to bring that into the Bill?
Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)
When we were considering 90 days, I and others proposed 60 days. The reason I did so, as I am sure you are aware, is that the West Yorkshire force and my own particular division in Huddersfield were the arresting officers after the London bombings. Having reviewed the evidence that they had collected, they advised me that they did not think that 90 days was necessary, but they were determined that 60 days would be enough. They are still of that view. Will you explain why you think that 42 days will be sufficient? Were there an atrocity now, would we regret being so careful in restraining ourselves?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
To pursue that point, can you give the Committee any more precise information about the criteria that were used to arrive at 42 days and about what factors were weighed in arriving at that figure? The confusion among the public is that a number of different extension times have been proposed, yet this one has been arrived at. I, and I suspect many other hon. Members, feel that we have had no clear guidance about how this figure was arrived at rather than any other.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
You have clearly done a lot of research into this. Can you tell us at what point, although I know that it is not possible to cite a typical case because there is no such thing, on average, you would expect Parliament to be approving the extension?
Andrew Gwynne (Labour, Denton and Reddish)
Minister, earlier we heard from Liberty about the comparisons with other common-law jurisdictions regarding how long people can be held without charge. We also heard Lord Carlile’s view. Can any meaningful comparisons be made with these jurisdictions?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
I have heard from Liberty that this will be a driver of radicalisation if we do it. What do you say to that and what research might your Department have done into it? Secondly, Mr. Rebello made the interesting point about perhaps training and security-clearing all coroners. What is your view on that?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
On this point about drivers of radicalisation, what do you and your Department see as the main ingredients in that mix? What is it that is causing this?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
What did the Muslim organisations say?
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
Expanding on the quote about the process of consultation, you have explained that there was not time to consult with the Coroners’ Society. You mentioned faith groups and Muslim groups, but did you consult other stakeholders and if so, how long was the process and what were the findings?
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I have one further comment about the evidence we heard from Mr. Rebello from the Coroners’ Society. Responding to Mr. Holloway on the point about training all 110 coroners, he made quite a strong statement—I do not know whether you were in the room. He said that he was very uncomfortable about the idea of appointed coroners and that he felt that the rule of law would go out of the window. You have already said that you will look into that whole aspect because it was added to the Bill at quite a late stage, but do you want to respond to that now?
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
In bringing forward this legislation, how much do you regret that we are challenging Benjamin Franklin’s famous statement:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”?
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
So you agree with Lord Goldsmith when he said on Tuesday:
“In principle, it is enormously important that something as significant as individual liberty, which is such an important part of this country’s background, should not be undermined or removed unless you can show that that is necessary, not just that it might be desirable at some future stage.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 67, Q176.]
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
But do you accept that a trade-off is being made between liberty, which for many people is totemic, and the additional security that you are seeking to obtain through these measures?
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
But you will accept that there are divided counsels on the necessity for this among the people who have to implement it.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
I understand that. I was referring in particular to the DPP. Obviously, we heard from ACPO—
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
What he said was:
“I have expressed my professional view, which is derived from our operational experience, on whether 28 days is sufficient and is likely to remain so, and our conclusion is that it is.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 53, Q136.]
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
But presumably you would prefer it if the matter were not producing the controversy that it is?
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
What I seek to understand is the importance, in the discussions on these proposals, of achieving consensus if possible.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
Given all the evidence about the change from 28 to 42, the titanic importance that that has taken on, and the fact that you have made it clear in your evidence that that change is only one small part of a vast raft of measures that you are taking to address terrorism, I am at a loss to understand why the Government are so firmly stuck on this position, when it is not required at the moment. If it is required, you will have to come to Parliament anyway, under the provisions that you are putting forward, to invoke it. It seems a very strange judgment, given how important it is that we try to move forward on the legislation in as unified a fashion as possible.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
Liberty and a number of our colleagues in the Chamber have, on occasions likened this legislation to internment without trial. What would you say in response to that?
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
You seem to feel strongly about it. You have made some valid points that Parliament would understand. How can you convince the public, and in particular those people who are using the issue to accuse the Government of being the recruiting sergeant for Muslim terrorists, that it is not the same?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I will just pick up the last point that the Minister made. There is a great deal of consensus about substantive parts of the anti-terrorism legislation and the corpus of work that has already happened and is continued in this Bill. We need to keep on making that point because it is an important one. I do not want to argue about matters that we shall develop in Committee; there is no point in that. First, may I ask a question about the inquests? The Minister has made it pretty plain that he is prepared to discuss this part of the Bill. Perhaps it is not area in which he feels he has greatest expertise, given that it comes from another Department. Is he aware of what consideration was given to the use of PII as a mechanism and why it is felt to be inadequate as a way of presenting matters that are sensitive in national security terms to a coroner’s court without disclosure?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
It is a very good way of answering it. We are aware that the Ministry of Justice has been leading on the Coroners Bill and matters relating to it.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
In effect the mechanism takes it out of public proceedings, but let us not debate that now.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
Can I move on to the second point that I wanted to ask about? Minister, you said earlier that you had already put in train a review of the use of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with respect to its effect on the Muslim community. Can I suggest that there is a wider issue here? As you recognise, through the whole body of anti-terrorism law we are giving exceptional powers to the police and security services to deal with exceptional circumstances. I am convinced that, in the main, those powers are used responsibly and appropriately, but there are also a lot of instances where they are not used appropriately. I will give an example from my own experience.
My daughter is a 20-year-old university student in London. Three of her friends were stopped and searched in the Kings Cross area only a few weeks ago under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is my belief that they had given no cause for suspicion; they were perfectly ordinary, white, middle-class students. I do not believe that there was any reason why they should have given cause for suspicion, nor did they provide any cause for suspicion upon search. If that sort of abuse takes place it alienates a far wider community. I ask you to review not only the way in which powers are used, but also to ensure that individual constables are educated in the exercise of their duty to ensure that they are in line with what their chief constables and Ministers would want them to do.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I am glad that you have mentioned RIPA, Minister, and the part of it that was subsequently amended by the Terrorism Act 2006, which deals with encryption keys. Can the Government provide any satisfactory explanation of why they took so long to bring into force what was described as being a key part of the arsenal against terrorism?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
Will someone write to me with a definitive answer on the matter?
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
There is great interest in radicalisation, so I would like to suggest that, if people have not read Michael Gove’s book on terrorism, it is well worth reading. It is a well-rounded book that I would recommend you pick up.
My interest and concern is in using intercept as evidence. I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that there will be an informal seminar on intercept; that will be very valuable. I am concerned that the technology is complex and that tracing it becomes less feasible and less accurate. Also, using intercept evidence could show gaps in the intelligence and security services’ knowledge. Further, there could be a capability gap, as minority languages, such as the Afghan language of Dari, which is spoken by so few and is very colloquial, would be very difficult to translate. Lastly, by tracing the evidence—I have said this once before today, because I am concerned—you will put the finger on operatives who are out there helping the security agencies, and who, increasingly, are Muslims. I have three points—
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Dari, I think that you are probably asking the Minister whether he agrees with you.
Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)
It would be really valuable if he said yes.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
Minister, you started your case quite passionately. Taking you back to your summary of the DPP’s comments, there is consensus in some areas. We all agree that terrorism is wrong and that we should be doing something about it. However, are you not undermining the validity of your own case by trying to suggest that Ken Macdonald agrees with your position? It is quite clear to those of us who have been on the Committee and taken the evidence that he does not see any reason to go beyond 28 days. There is an honest disagreement there and trying to pretend otherwise simply undermines your position.
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
I think that we all agree with that. I do not wish to single out the Minister, but I heard one of his colleagues on Second Reading give the strong impression that there was no difference of opinion between Ken Macdonald and the Government. Clearly, there is an important difference of opinion and there is no point in trying to pretend otherwise.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
May I ask two questions? The first relates to the prevent strategy and its effect on radicalisation. Is it not the case that there has been an increase in plots and in individuals being radicalised in the last three to four years?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
That troubles me, because in your earlier answers, Minister, you said that there is no evidence to suggest that the bulk of the counter-terrorism legislation that has been introduced by the Government has had an effect on radicalisation; that there has been a growth in it. Clearly, if there are more people being attracted to extreme forms of Islam and there are more plots—some of which, I grant you, will be because more plots are being uncovered and police forces are getting better at mapping the communities— there is, certainly anecdotally, some form of linkage. There could be that linkage; you could not rule out a linkage between the growth in people seeking their way out through extreme Islam and some of the legislation that has been introduced.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
I do not disagree with much of what the Minister says. I think that it is important that we recognise that radicalisation has certainly not reversed in the last four or five years.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
I have pored over the “Tackling Extremism Together” initiative, which was quickly drawn up and put into place after 7/7. Unfortunately, we are still going in the wrong direction and we can lay blame for that.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
Going beyond the issue of detention without charge, and let us say that the Government gets it, I share some of Lord Carlile’s concerns. He mentioned one concern—I am not sure whether you were in the room at the time—regarding the judicial oversight on someone in detention. In that situation, my reading of the Bill is that the DPP will come and present a reason why that person should continue in detention and the High Court judge will make their views known, or will make a decision on that.
I am summing up Lord Carlile, but he believes effectively that we are not yet in a position to have judges able to properly test effectively the intelligence. Sir Ian Blair made it clear yesterday that, at apprehension of individuals, there is a lot of intelligence and not a lot of evidence, and he was going to use that detention time to convert that intelligence into evidence.
In defending someone’s liberty, when that person is standing in the court and the judge is having to make that decision, is it not appropriate that the judge should be able to test quite strongly the intelligence that may be put in front of him by the Executive, if he is going to agree to a further extension? I think that Lord Carlile envisages investigative judges, perhaps like those on the continent. We could perhaps have specialist, trained judges. Do you not think that that is something we should do?
Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)
You said that you do not want to be legislating after an atrocity. If the House does not accept the need for 42-day pre-charge detention, what will be your main objection to legislating if there were to be an atrocity?
Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)
Have you considered some of the other practicalities? Would the House have the time, for example? I am thinking about the limits that would be placed on the House, given that we would perhaps have had suspects in detention for some time. We would be up against time constraints, so perhaps the parliamentary time scale would have an impact, even though we have put legislation through the House in a single day.
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
What is our view on plea bargaining?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
So, you are sympathetic to Lord Carlile’s view that it might be formalised in legislation?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
This may be one for both the Minister and Jennifer Morrish. What would happen in practice today if someone such as Mr. Quick came to the Home Secretary and said, “We have this group of people and we have had them for 27 days. It is absolutely imperative that they do not go back on the streets”? What could you do?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
No.1, I would say that that would not happen. On the premise that it did happen, I would say to Mr. Quick, “I am a Minister of the Crown and I do not do operations. Go back to your prosecutor colleagues and your police colleagues and secure the information and evidence that you need to charge. You have 24 hours or you will have to release.”
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
In practice, if the situation was dire?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
Control orders are an option.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
May I ask a general question about post-charge questioning and how useful it is likely to be in getting admissions in evidence or intelligence from people who will be subject to post-charge questioning? Can you give us a sense of the importance of this legislation?