Counter-Terrorism Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 May 2008.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

On a point of order, Mr. Bercow. I am grateful for your indulgence.

This weekend The Sunday Times ran a story about the commentary given by Sir Ian Blair to the Committee. The story appeared to show that there was—how shall I put it?—confusion in his mind about the number of terrorist outrages that had been interdicted, either between 2000 and now or between 2005 and now. My impression was certainly that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was suggesting that the number of outrages had occurred in a much tighter time scale than had previously been reported in the public domain.

Has the Clerk of the Committee received any representations from the Metropolitan police on that subject? Have you, Mr. Bercow, seen any commentary from the Press Association on the matter? If, as I am suggesting, the rest of the Committee is as confused as I am, might we recall Sir Ian Blair to restate his evidence?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Bercow. The Hansard of our proceedings records the hon. Member for Reading, West asking:

“how many serious terrorist plots the police and the security services have disrupted since the London bombings of 7/7?”

Sir Ian’s answer was:

“I will stretch to something like 12, but where would you get to, Bob?”

Bob Quick replied:

“I am still being briefed on the very complex history to fighting terrorism, but my understanding is in the order of about 15 occasions.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 15.]

That ended up splashed on the front of two London newspapers, but the Committee and I, on reading The Sunday Times, discovered that that factor had been exaggerated by 100 to 150 per cent., depending on whose version one took. I rang the Clerk as soon as we were in this morning—I thought I must have missed a correction from the Metropolitan police, because there is a reference to the Metropolitan police attempting to make a correction. There has been no communication with the Committee. If that had not been in the newspapers, the Committee would be in complete ignorance of the main advocate for a change in our legislation exaggerating his case by 100 to 150 per cent. That is a serious matter.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful for the point of order, with which I will deal in a moment. First I will take the third in what I suspect is a sequence.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Bercow. I am sure that every member of the Committee accepts that it is possible for someone inadvertently to make mistakes when giving evidence. What troubles me more than the apparent inaccuracy is, as was just said, that it seems to have been corrected to the press, but not to us. One would have expected a letter to wing its way to the Committee in the same way as we had from the coroners, explaining that an error had been made. I was puzzled. I wondered whether a letter had come to my office on Thursday or Friday that I had missed. However, I understand today that that is not the case. I should have thought it a grave discourtesy to the Committee for a correction to be issued to the Press Association, but for us not to be notified first.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order, and to both of his hon. Friends for their points of order. To help the Committee, I will set out the position as I understand it, as clearly as possible.

On the afternoon of 22 April, the day on which the Association of Chief Police Officers gave evidence, the organisation contacted the scrutiny unit in an attempt to correct a mistake in its evidence that morning. ACPO was advised by the scrutiny unit that is could not make a correction in that fashion, by telephone, orally, and that the proper course was to correct the mistake through the production and circulation of a written memorandum, which would be seen by all members of the Committee. I have to advise the Committee and those who raised the points of order that no such written correction has been made. I was asked whether representations had been made directly to the Clerk of the Committee—the answer is no. I was asked whether I had been contacted or been on the receiving end of representations—again, the answer is no. I was asked whether I had been contacted or been on the receiving end of representations—again, the answer is no.

I am familiar with the article that appeared in TheSunday Times. I would simply say, with reference to what the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said, that I regard it as a grave discourtesy for someone who knows that he or she has made a mistake and is advised of the proper course by which to correct it, not only to fail to do so, but to appear to find another avenue through which to put the record straight. The Committee should be told directly if a mistake has been made, and it should be told in the proper formal fashion. I feel sure that ACPO will study the Hansard record of our proceedings this morning and I hope that that written memorandum of correction will be winging its way to Committee members before long.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Bercow. Since it was my question that led to the answers, I associate myself with some of the remarks—if not the tone—of Opposition Members. However, it in no way weakens Labour Members case to have the exact, accurate information in front of us. It would not be appropriate to have the commissioner back, but a written memorandum of evidence would be appropriate. Would it be in order for you, Mr. Bercow, to write on behalf of the Committee to the commissioner, requesting that information forthwith?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It is not appropriate for me to contact ACPO to request that it send a memorandum. The procedure is that, having contacted the scrutiny unit and been advised of how to put the record straight, it falls to ACPO to do so. As I have just said, I am sure that ACPO will see the Official Report of our proceedings and I would expect it, in the light of the points of order raised on both sides of the Committee, to hasten, formally, in writing, to correct the record.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for flagging up the point about a recall. It is up to the Committee to programme further evidence sessions before 15 May, if it so wishes. It would be appropriate for those seeking that opportunity to go through the usual channels in their attempts to do so.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Bercow. That may be an appropriate point to say that our problem is that we are about to debate the provisions to which the evidence relates. There is a certain absurdity in asking for the record to be corrected when the evidence about the actual position cannot be obtained from the police and the record corrected before we debate that important issue, which is of the most significant national concern.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is making the point that the situation is unsatisfactory. He is right. It is. However, we are where we are. I have made the formal position clear. ACPO will not have missed it. It will not be beyond the wit and ingenuity of Committee members to deduce what they wish and to make their arguments in their own way. We cannot interrupt the business of the Committee.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On a point of order, Mr. Bercow. I should like to move that the Programming Sub-Committee meet as soon as possible.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am not aware that there is any enthusiasm for such a proposition on the Government Benches. Ministers or their representatives are free to signal if there is, but I do not sense that that is the case.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Bercow. Looking at the matter sensibly, a memorandum reaching the Committee quickly would probably clear the matter up. The problem is that we have no power to demand a memorandum from the Metropolitan police. In the meantime, our only leverage to obtain a memorandum is to call a Programming Sub-Committee and to move towards summoning the commissioner and Mr. Quick back before us. If we do not do that, we will run out of Committee time before we know what has happened. That is the anxiety of Committee members.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but having created a good pudding, it is perhaps unwise for him to over-egg it.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Bercow. I concur that the situation is unsatisfactory. I also remind the Committee that that will not alter one jot the principled arguments before us. Is there any member of the Committee who would take the matter any less seriously whether there had been five or six major terrorist plots or whether 5,000 people instead of 10,000 people had had their lives endangered? That is an absurdity.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has put his views clearly on the record. Members will wish to avoid eliding into the debate that we are about to have. We have the opportunity to have that debate, which we will, but not before I have had a chance to hear a point of order from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Bercow. The matter has possibly run its course in Committee this morning, but will you confirm that, in the absence of any correction from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, it is entirely proper for the Committee, to use the language of the Bill, to draw an adverse inference?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw me into debate and argument. He will know that, whatever the temptations, I must not be so drawn. I wanted the points of order to be made, because they are serious and came from representatives of all three parties on the Committee. However, the arguments will not improve by virtue of further repetition. We need to move on to the main business of the Committee.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Bercow. I deliberately refrained from intervening earlier, but I accept the serious points made. I hope that, as a consequence of our deliberations, the correction will be forthcoming in a written memorandum. You are quite right that it is not beyond the wit of the Committee to ensure that ACPO has the import of our deliberations this morning rather earlier than from the Hansard record. All the points made were entirely fair, underscored by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, who made the fairest points.

I rise to speak on different matters, if I may. I say to the hon. Member for Reigate that, notwithstanding the debate we have just had, if he is serious about securing further evidence sessions, they will be dealt with as normal, through the usual channels. Notwithstanding our lack of generosity this morning, there will be a keener ear for such deliberations if they are serious and substantial.

I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Bercow. I am sure that you are having great fun juggling paternity leave and the Committee, and I am pretty sure too which you regard as more fun, despite our deliberations.

On a more serious and substantive point, it would be useful if Committee members would let officials know whether they will attend tomorrow’s seminar on intercept as evidence and on coroners, or whether they are less enthusiastic than they once were for such a seminar. If they are tardy in their response, we will be organising a further session between Committee and Report stages to deliberate with Bob Quick just those complexities that we will debate in a moment in relation to pre-charge detention.

I should relate to the Committee our brief discussion, which was, roughly, that as the substantive item is schedule 1, I do not intend to deliberate for an unusually long period, as I normally do, on either clause 21, when we finish part 1, or clause 22, which is merely a gateway clause into the schedule. That is the appropriate way, as you have indicated, to carry on our discussions.

Finally, with no churlish intent at all, I should like to welcome the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and wish him a happy birthday.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Minister of State for his kind remarks and for the information that he has helpfully provided.

Clause 22

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

If I may, Mr. Bercow, I will take up what the Minister said. We clearly are in need of, and are likely to have, a substantial debate on the issues in schedule 1. I am happy to confine those issues to schedule 1. That schedule has one amendment, and I wondered what the best way to deal procedurally with that would be, before I lost the opportunity to raise anything under clause 22. I would have suggested that it might be sensible to start with a general debate on schedule 1, rather than focus on the amendment, but I will be guided by you, Mr. Bercow, as long as we can have that debate on the issues in schedule 1.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his points. We intend to proceed by first debating Government amendment No. 75. I recognise that that is a relatively narrow matter, but, procedurally, we deal with that first. We dispose of it, and then move on to a full debate, if that is what members of the Committee seek, on schedule 1.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Purely for the record, it is clearly the intent of the clause purely and simply to introduce schedule 1. I can do no better than simply read the clause. It states:

“Schedule 1 to this Act contains amendments relating to the period for which a person may be detained under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (arrest and detention of suspected terrorists)”—

and no more than that. Even the most suspicious, cynical and paranoid members of the Committee could see that it does no more than introduce the substantial point for our deliberations—schedule 1. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Schedule 1

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 75, in schedule 1, page 70, line 3, after ‘(5)’ insert ‘to (7)’.

The purpose of the amendment is to correct an oversight in a series of the consequential amendments outlined in schedule 1. It will ensure that the definition of “senior judge” in the stated paragraph is omitted when reading schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if the maximum limit reverts to 14 days. It is a minor technical amendment, which makes no change to the effect of the existing policy, and I commend it to the Committee.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

As this is a schedule stand part debate, Mr. Bercow, I wondered whether the Minister was going to introduce and justify it, but I notice his hesitation, which may indicate that he wishes other people to speak first. I am perfectly happy to speak first as to why I think schedule 1 should not stand part of the Bill.

We can start, I suppose, by going back to some basic principles, which, I think, the Government have shown themselves willing to accept. We have had a great deal of debate in this House in the past about the length of time a person should be detained in custody by the police before being charged. It is worth pointing out—it is something which is sometimes slightly glossed over—that, in our legal system, the common law system that we have enjoyed for many centuries, the basic principle in the past was that the purpose of arresting somebody was not to question them but to bring them before the magistrate on the charge to which they were subject.

When habeas corpus, which is often cited, was introduced in the 17th century to deal with the mischief of individuals being locked up by the Executive without being brought before a court, there was no proper time that the Executive could lock a person up without bringing them before a court. There might of course be some slight delay. If somebody was arrested on a Saturday afternoon, there might be no magistrate available until Monday morning, although magistrates in those days could sometimes be found to come out and do special sessions.

There might be other reasons why there would be some short delay when a person was in the custody of the constable or other person in authority before they appeared before the court, but the idea that there was some sort of investigative process which allowed the police, or, prior to the police, the watch, to detain somebody without having charged them was unheard of. This was, of course, in marked contrast to the system which prevailed in continental countries, where the power of the Executive to inquire into crime provided an excuse—as it still does today—to detain people at times for quite long periods upon a charge having been laid but never actually brought before the tribunal to try the matter. The difference is between common law systems and inquisitorial systems.

Before I suddenly give the impression that I am seeking a return to a 17th-century practice, let me say that I am the first to accept that there is some merit to having a system by which the police can detain a person for a short period before charging them. That is in fact why the system itself emerged in the late 19th century, before it became formalised in statute. The police argued—very reasonably, I think—that, having arrested somebody, there was a lot to be said for being able to ask them a few questions, essentially to check whether they might have got the wrong end of the stick. There was also a short window of opportunity, which allowed the police to go and lay their hands on any papers or evidence that might be thought useful in bringing the case. It remains true, however, that the common law system historically provided for a very short period of time for the police to do that. Under our legal principles, it is not so much an investigative period as a period sufficient for the police to decide whether they might have got it wrong, without going through the paraphernalia of charging somebody.

As the Minister will doubtless confirm, although there have been some extensions, for ordinary crime in this country four days remains the outer time limit for which a person can be detained for questioning, and that applies to very serious crime indeed. In some common law jurisdictions, the principle of detention for 24 hours only remains operational, with the intention that it is still the system that started to exist in this country in the late 19th century.

Any departure from that principle is something that Parliament should be very careful about. It is a fundamental breach of the principles of our adversarial legal system which, although far from perfect—no human system of justice can ever be perfect—at least has the merit of ensuring that people are not locked up for long periods. Indeed, although I am sure that it can sometimes lead to miscarriages of justice, as can all human legal systems, on the whole the view is that our system delivers a high quality of justice that is, for example, superior to the French justice system, with which I am familiar as I have a partially French background. In that system, there are startling examples of individuals being detained for long periods in inquisitorial procedures, only for it to emerge after two years or even longer that the inquiring judge has got completely the wrong end of the stick, has perhaps been behaving a little capriciously, and that a person has been deprived of their rights.

As far as terrorist cases are concerned, we are not talking about extending 28 days—in fairness, the Government have already accepted that 28 days is an emergency procedure. We are talking about extending the period from 14 days, first to 28 days, which we are currently doing in the annual renewal under the 2005 Act, and then to 42 days, having previously rejected the Government’s initial attempt two years ago to move it to 90 days. Is there a case for such an extraordinary power to be given to the police, and ultimately to the state? The Government envisage that the Home Secretary in particular will have a key role in using and developing the 42-day process.

Speaking for myself, and I expect for most of my hon. Friends, I hope that we are essentially pragmatists. Being pragmatists, if somebody comes along and makes a powerful and persuasive case for why an exceptional or extraordinary power is needed due to some particular circumstances, we should be prepared to consider it. Equally, in the past, Parliament has been asked to depart from the ordinary principles of our common law on a number of occasions, including by past Conservative Governments when detention without trial was introduced in Northern Ireland. History has shown that in doing such things, we almost certainly made a colossal mistake. Far from improving matters, or the safety and security of the public, whatever short-term safety and security that may have been improved was fatally undermined by maintaining some of the grievances that fuelled the conflict, long after any efficaciousness of the measure had worn off. I consider schedule 1 with that in mind.

The Government have said a number of things about schedule 1, and there are a number of points on which I profoundly disagree. Perhaps I may take up a little of the Committee’s time to run through the issues which, I think, make it a flawed document.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

In the context of what the hon. and learned Gentleman is about to say, may I remind him what Conservative Members have said on the matter? I take him back to a Home Affairs Committee report that is not often quoted—not the one a few months ago, in which I was involved, which cited exceptional circumstances very much as laid down in the Bill, but that of June 2006. It recommended unanimously that

“the growing number of cases and the increase in suspects monitored by the police and security services make it entirely possible, and perhaps increasingly likely, that there will be cases that do provide that justification. We believe, therefore”—

I emphasise that “we” means that it was agreed on an all-party basis—

“that the 28 day limit may well prove inadequate in the future.”

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman had a chance to reflect on the views of some of his colleagues?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I will move on to that in a moment. One of the most noteworthy issues in our debate has been whether there is evidence that 28 days is proving insufficient. As I think the hon. Gentleman might find himself conceding in the course of the debate, it appears that absolutely no one has been able to come forward and say that 28 days is not sufficient at present. No evidence to this Committee suggested that, and when the Home Affairs Committee took its evidence back in the autumn of 2007, there was no one available to make such an argument. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of individuals, ranging from the Director of Public Prosecutions, from whom we heard only a fortnight ago, to Lord Goldsmith, who was the Attorney-General at the time of the debate on extension to 90 days, were utterly emphatic that they could think of no circumstances at present—one cannot go into hypotheses—in which they considered that anything beyond 28 days would be required. In fairness to the police, although I shall come to some of the flaws in the presentation of their case, they have acknowledged that they have never required more than 28 days in any case so far.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that whatever was said in 2006, or indeed in the debate in 2005 on changing to 90 days, in which I was heavily involved, some of the anxieties that were expressed then do not seem to have materialised. Moreover, as he will know, we have pointed out that although the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 is an imperfect instrument for the purposes of lengthening detention, if there were multiple plots sufficient to trigger a state of emergency, which they almost certainly would, it could provide for an extension. I shall return to that in a moment, although I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee’s time.

We are debating whether there should be an extension beyond 28 days not in a state of emergency but on the basis of a decision taken by the Secretary of State, following a report from a chief officer of police and the DPP, on the need to operate a new reserve power. It is not about a state of emergency at all. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the evidence is overwhelming that those who are the most intimately involved have found no objective basis to justify going beyond the already lengthy period of 28 days—a month.

When I consider a month’s detention, it troubles me to think what that means in practice. I know that in at least one case in which an individual was detained for the full 28 days, he had no mental health problems at the start of his detention. At the end of the period, concern was expressed that he was developing serious mental health problems. The case is perfectly documented, and the Minister will know about it. I do not want to go into the detail of individual names and cases. Detaining somebody for such a long period, not in a prison or a normal environment, but in Paddington Green police station, in considerable isolation, is an extremely oppressive thing to do to the human psyche. I have seen a copy of bits of the report of a psychologist who had treated such a detainee, detailing concerns that such treatment was likely to lead to mental health breakdown. These are not slight matters.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is not persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, is there a chance that he will be persuaded by Lord Carlile? In evidence to us, he said:

“I believe that there have been cases in which people have been charged when greater evidence might have been made available by following up sensitive intelligence or other evidence that is inadmissible for the time being.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2008; c. 123, Q325.]

He referenced encrypted material, inquiries abroad and people who are unfit to give evidence. Is that evidence not persuasive to the hon. and learned Gentleman?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Lady’s comments raise two separate issues. As has become quite clear to me from listening to Lord Carlile, not just in his evidence to the Committee, but when discussing this matter with him in seminars that I have attended in the last 12 months, he would like to bring about a radical transformation of the investigative system for terrorism in this country. That is quite clear in some of his earlier reports. He advocates not 42 or 90 days pre-charge detention, but a shift to what I can only describe as a semi-continental model where if the police can justify to a judge the need for further detention because more evidence might become available, they should be allowed to detain such an individual till kingdom come. In fairness to him, he does not envisage that happening because he thinks that there would come a point at which the judiciary would intervene and say that the person must be released.

Lord Carlile has never been an advocate for 42 days pre-charge detention. As I understand it from reading his reports and from speaking and listening to him, he advocates an open-ended system argued on the back of his belief that material would progressively emerge. I have two points to make about that. First, as a matter of principle that system does not commend itself to me. It is for the same reason that I went back to basics at the start of my speech. I wanted to remind the Committee and myself what we consider to be acceptable in this country in the investigation of crime. Terrorism is crime like any other. This is not an inquisitorial system, but one where traditionally, the purpose of arrest is to bring a charge, not to detain somebody while inquiries and investigations are carried out.

I am perfectly prepared to see some latitude in the system. We did not object to some of the extensions that have taken us to 14 days and I was prepared to compromise on 28 days to try to achieve a consensus in the House in 2005. However, for the reasons that I gave a moment ago—particularly the example that I cited about the effect on individuals of such long periods of detention—I regard 28 days as the outer limit of the acceptable. Those are the very words that I remember using to the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) when I had negotiations with him in 2005 prior to their breakdown when Mr. Blair stepped in and insisted that he would have 90 days and nothing else. I remember discussing that in the Home Office at that time. That is why I have always considered that 28 days is pushing the outer limits of what is acceptable. While I appreciate Lord Carlile’s point, I disagree with him on principle.

Secondly, I have more than a slight niggle. Theoretically, if somebody is detained for a very long period, something may turn up. Investigators may succeed in getting into an encrypted code or something else may happen, but that must be contrasted with what Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said. He is the man who ultimately carries the can both for the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute and for the CPS doing a botched job. I hope that I do not paraphrase incorrectly how he put it to me and the Committee, but his experience is that if one has not got what one is looking for within 28 days, it is most unlikely that one will get it thereafter.

As for the encryption key, one is either going to get it or one is not. One of our arguments with the Government—I continue to be very concerned about the matter—is that the penalty for failing to provide encryption should be sufficiently heavy to have some weight. However, if one does not have an encryption key and one cannot break the encryption within 28 days, it is questionable whether one will get it thereafter.

One of the issues that we have debated over and over is whether anyone knows of a case of someone being released on day 28 about whom the police have said at a later date, “Oh, this is a disaster. He has disappeared, and we want him.” It is has not yet happened. That is precisely because, as the hon. Lady will be aware from the evidence given to the Committee, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police, very properly in my view, operate a threshold test on whether to bring a prosecution. That requires turning the reasonable suspicion that the police need to justify arrest into evidence.

It is worth bearing it in mind that the police need a reasonable suspicion to arrest people; they cannot just pick people off the street, although given the many examples that are brought before me as shadow Attorney-General I wonder whether the police have been reminded of that fact. They need to have reasonable suspicion. That suspicion can be grounded on hearsay, intelligence material and all sorts of other things that cannot be used in court.

The key issue for the police when arresting someone, and for the Crown Prosecution Service, is to convert the reasonable suspicion, which may be based on information that cannot be used in court, into evidence. In his evidence to the Committee, Sir Ken Macdonald said that they always find it possible to obtain the information that they want within the 28 day period. We shall doubtless hear more about this during the Bill’s passage through the House, but I have had plenty of opportunities to try to find out more about the cases in which people have been detained up to the limit.

I wish to make the position clear. The Minister has suggested that some who claimed to be against the extension were accusing the police of using the 28 days as a matter of pure convenience and of holding people long after they had the evidence. That is not the case. I have no doubt that the police sought to keep people detained because they thought that extra evidence might become available. However, it is noteworthy that we cannot make a claim that 27 or 28 days has ever been required to obtain evidence on which to charge.

I have to be careful because of the sub judice aspects, so the Committee will have to take parts of this on trust, although I will happily amplify the matter privately. The evidence is overwhelming in cases that went right through to the limit that the basis on which the charges were eventually brought—I do not criticise the police—had been available a considerable time before; indeed, in most cases it was found within the previous 14-day period. As I say, the fact that I am talking about current cases makes it impossible for me to go into further detail. I apologise to the Committee for that.

Those are the facts. That is not to say that there may not one day be a case in which the evidence emerges on day 26. That is why we have been prepared to tolerate 28 days, with an annual review. Even that is something on which I keep an open mind. The sooner we can go back to 14 days the better. However, those are the facts that we have before us.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to be careful about praying in aid people in our arguments here? Sir Ken Macdonald clearly said to the Committee that, while the DPP is able to use the powers comfortably at the moment, he would be equally comfortable about using new powers. Is not the nub of the debate whether we legislate either—in my view—in blind panic after an outrage or on the precautionary principle? Were the hon. Gentleman’s arguments against 28 days—because we have managed with 27—not similarly deployed when we moved from seven to 14 days and from 14 to 28 days—moves that his party was happy to endorse?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

On the second point, people who wished to argue against extending from seven to 14 days had a great number of good grounds for doing so. They were entitled to point out the dramatic nature of the change that such an extension brought about. To finish that point, we are talking about moving from 28 to 42 days. I have made my position clear. We voted for 28 days—I certainly did, although I know that I have one or two colleagues who did not, because they had serious doubts about the civil liberties issues. I was prepared to go for 28 days, above all to try and build that which is often so elusive in this place—a consensus. One of the most extraordinary things is just how extensive that consensus, which the Minister and the Government are now trying to overturn, was.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, although I am slightly reluctant to interrupt his eloquent arguments. However, does he regret the way in which the DPP’s comments have clearly been misrepresented, given that he was obviously uncomfortable with any extension? My recollection is that he made it perfectly clear that, were someone to be charged after 28 days and before 42 days, then the CPS might have some difficulty bringing forward a prosecution, because of the length of time that the person had been kept in isolation.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The DPP is a member of the Executive arm of the state, admittedly through the prosecution service. Parliament decides the periods that individuals can be detained. It would be extraordinary for the Director of Public Prosecutions to come before a Committee, or anyone else, and say, “Well, if Parliament gives me a power, I can tell you that I object to it so much that I will not use it.” If he felt so strongly, his duty then would be to resign, but that is not his job. That, however, does not in any way detract from what the DPP actually said to us. The DPP said that he could see no necessity whatsoever to go beyond 28 days and that the only arguments put forward in favour were in what I interpreted as the realms of extreme hypotheses, which did not appear to bear any relation to the reality of the decisions that he was having to make.

If anyone wanted a clearer argument against going beyond 28 days, it is that we are engaging in a debate that appears to be based, at least partly, on a fantasy, from the DPP’s point of view. That could not have been made clearer. I have to say to the hon. Member for Reading, West, who was creative and ingenious in making his arguments, that trying to use the DPP to support the point of view that he was presenting to the Committee was pushing things a little bit. The DPP gave evidence in the autumn and has done so again. The second time, he could not have been more starkly clear that he disagreed with the Government’s reasoning on the matter. By virtue of the CPS now being intimately involved with the charging process—and, indeed, often with the arresting and investigative process, from its earliest stages—he seems to be a person who is in a good position to know what is going on.

If I may move back into the text of schedule 1, the Government’s arguments are that we should not worry, although perhaps I am being unfair to the Minister. The Minister might appreciate that people may worry. However, the Government have put in safeguards that ought to provide reassurance that schedule 1 is acceptable. I must say to the Minister that I profoundly disagree with that argument. First, it is not about a power to be invoked in an emergency; it is about a power to be invoked when the Home Secretary decides that it should. I accept that the report on the operational need for a reserved power must be made, but I hope that I may be forgiven for just the smallest element of cynicism. It is not as though the police and the Home Secretary operate entirely separately. There will always be cross-referencing, quite properly, between the two, and it seems to me that the Home Secretary will have powerful influence over determining whether an extension should be sought.

Secondly—this point has been made, but it is worth making again—the entire apparatus of parliamentary scrutiny provided for in schedule 1 is not only pointless, but fundamentally wrong in principle. We are parliamentarians. We are certainly here to legislate, to tell the Government and to hold the Executive to account, but saying that we should be brought into a process of, in practice, reviewing individual cases is asking Parliament to do something that, in my view, it is incapable of doing properly—not because of the incapacity of individual Members, but because of how we operate as a body. Also, we should not do it anyway, as it is in flagrant conflict with that wonderful thing that we sometimes talk about—I do not like the phrase “separation of powers”; I prefer “the independence of the legal process”—which it is our duty to uphold and preserve.

Any Minister who comes before Parliament, having invoked the powers, will be unable to give the House very much detail about what is going on, because the matter will be under investigation or sub judice. There will also be an inevitable delay that will negate most of the value of the parliamentary scrutiny procedure, as the person will already have been inside for 35 days or more before we get around to considering the matter. Once that Minister has given information, Parliament will have no alternative, in my view, but to make judgments based on insufficient material. That is not the Minister’s fault, but throwing in the provision as a sop is inadequate. I would much prefer it not to be there at all, because it asks us to do something that we cannot properly do.

The second part of schedule 1 concerns the court, and I accept that there are some separate arguments on that matter. I shall explain to the Committee why the court procedure worries me as well. Judges are not there to regulate investigative powers, except in so far as they are brought before the courts subsequently in challenges about what took place. It is an unusual use of the judiciary to start putting them in that position. I think that the Minister knows—I certainly know, from private conversations—how uneasy the judiciary are about being dragged into such processes.

The same applies to issues such as control orders. It is not that the judiciary will not do them—Parliament requires them to, and they will—but the judiciary exist to uphold processes of fairness, transparency and equality of arms between parties. Being asked to get involved in administrative and policing decisions, where the material available and what can be disclosed to one person or another inevitably means that there is no equality of arms, is something that they regard, not surprisingly, with a certain degree of distaste. I accept that we already get them to do that in a number of settings. We sometimes ask, for instance, for warrants to be issued and detention periods to be subject to review, but that should not detract from the fact that Parliament should be wary about extending the powers. Either we are moving towards an inquisitorial system, in which case we need to take our entire common law system, put it through the mincer and come out with something else, or we are progressively moving towards a hybrid system that provides inadequate safety checks, which was one reason why I had so much unease about Lord Carlile’s views.

My experience is that asking the court to authorise further detention in individual cases, admittedly on seven-day review periods, is not a happy thing. Seven days is a long time. Somehow, the fact that we have seven-day reviews appears acceptable, but seven days is longer than the period for which we are allowed to detain people normally, outside terrorism cases. We are progressively expanding the power of administrative detention—that is what it is, even if it is for the purpose of bringing charges—further and further. I find that aspect of the matter, which we will debate in more detail, a source of particular anxiety.

Finally, I note that the Government provide for independent review and report. I have nothing against that, but the measure does not go anywhere towards meeting the mischief that the proposals will create.

I wish to conclude my speech reasonably soon, but I should first like to return to the issue of the Civil Contingencies Act so that the Minister and the Committee understand where the official Opposition are coming from. When the Government first came back with proposals to go beyond 28 days, we highlighted that, in an emergency, the astonishing powers—some might argue—that we have given to the Government in the Civil Contingencies Act allow for a period of detention that is in practice much longer, if the Government are minding to use them.

I accept that there might be multiple plots, as was suggested, but if a situation in which three aeroplanes have been destroyed in the north Atlantic and more than 1,000 people are dead—and if there is great public anxiety and the threat or possibility of more incidents—is not a state of emergency, I cannot think what would be. I have always accepted that, in states of emergency, the Government might have to take action that departs from the normal standards of civil liberties and criminal justice procedure. We have specifically provided for that in the Civil Contingencies Act. It is also provided in the European convention on human rights that those are circumstances in which the state might have to take draconian action. I do not wish to see those things happen, but if they do, I for one would be prepared, if necessary, to support a Government measure to introduce such a provision.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

Frankly, I am astounded by the hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments, because surely the whole purpose of the Bill is to give the Government and the legal system the capacity to pre-empt exactly the scenario that he has envisaged. Does he agree that one of the Government’s most important functions is to have the capacity and ability to prevent just the sort of disaster that he outlined? Would not the public reasonably expect the Government to take such precautions?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he wishes to have such a power not because a state of emergency has arisen, but to ensure that none arise. On that basis, if I may say so, the Government would be justified in taking complete powers under the Civil Contingencies Act to exercise whenever they happen to desire them. The hon. Gentleman must ask at what point we fetter the Executive and at what point we give them unlimited powers. If we wish to live in a free society, the idea that we shall succeed in doing so while giving the Executive unlimited powers to use whenever they just happen to fit their bill—that is usually argued on the basis that we should not worry about such matters because the Executive are a universally benevolent organisation—is a mistaken view to adopt, given the lessons of history, and all the more so because that is, in fact, entirely unnecessary.

I come back to my point about the lack of necessity. The Prime Minister has been naughty in that he has kept repeating at the Dispatch Box that, when enacting the provisions under the schedule, he is meeting the points raised by the Opposition about emergencies. He is not. There is no requirement for a state of emergency to initiate the provisions. That is where we disagree fundamentally with the Government. A state of emergency can arise not only because bombs have gone off or we have key intelligence, but because multiple bombs are about to go off. That also justifies it.

The situation must be an emergency, and the Bill is not about emergencies. That is why we were so clear when we said to the Government that, if they considered that the Civil Contingencies Act was not a good vehicle for extending detention in an emergency, we were willing in a state of emergency to consider amendments being made to legislation to improve it. The Government have never come back on that. Their proposal has nothing to do with a state of emergency, but is an assessment of the need for such an extension in an individual case. For the reasons that I gave earlier, I do not consider that to be an acceptable way for Parliament to proceed.

I fully acknowledge that there might be a fundamental, philosophical difference between myself, as a Conservative, and the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Labour party, although it is right to say that many members of his party share the visceral disquiet about what is involved in implementing the Government’s measures. However, unfortunately, none of them appears to be represented on the Committee for the purposes of the debate.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

The hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about a fundamental, philosophical difference is legitimate. I am sure that you, Mr. Bercow, would not allow me to point out other areas where the Conservative party seems to be in favour of an infringement on individual liberties, such as sus laws. The hon. and learned Gentleman outlined an emergency situation in which he would find it acceptable to use the 58 days scheduled under the Civil Contingencies Act, but does he agree that it would be completely inappropriate for our security services, having identified an imminent bomb threat, then to declare a state of emergency to alert those who would carry it out and give them the opportunity to avoid the security services?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman bases his comments on an entirely false premise. To begin with, he must get round the point that has been made clearly by the Director of Public Prosecutions that such a thing is not likely to arise in the first place because of the existing powers by which the security services and the police can intervene, and because of their ability to arrest people and to charge them with the right offences. I shall return to investigating matters after charge.

Secondly, if the Government believe that the country is facing such an emergency that it needs state of emergency powers, they will have come to Parliament for those powers to be enforced. The hon. Gentleman said that such matters would alert people to the fact that the Government knew what was going on.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Further to the points made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West, how does he believe that we proceeded in Northern Ireland, when we were frequently in receipt of intelligence that may or may not have been defendable, but for which a slightly different, but parallel, prevention of terrorism Act, was used for precisely that purpose? Plots had to be interdicted—of course they did, lives had to be saved. That would be no different this time.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend brings his experience from Northern Ireland to bear on the matter, which is why I find the arguments made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West rather fantastical. In any event, my view is fairly clear: only in a state of emergency should one depart so radically from the principles of civil liberty and the freedom of the individual that are enshrined in our current law and that we are in danger of eroding far too far.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, far from the arguments that have been put forward being fantastical, the hon. Member for Newark is forgetting his own history? It was his signature that was on the recommendation last year from the Home Affairs Committee, when we rejected the use of a CCA, saying:

“However, we concluded that this was not an intended use of the powers under the CCA, that there were significant legal problems and that it would not be sensible for a national state of emergency to be triggered in the middle of a major investigation.”

Does he not agree that members of his own party have said that his arguments are not sensible and that we should be reminded of this point?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, whom I suspect will be speaking in this debate, will have every opportunity to explain his views to the hon. Gentleman. In any event, I return to the point that we acknowledged that the CCA was not necessarily the best vehicle for providing for an extension of detention in a state of emergency. The Government have never come back on that issue, although there have been numerous attempts by the Prime Minister to suggest that they have.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I am attempting to see where we can meet across the differences that we clearly have and I would like to persuade the hon. and learned Gentleman that, understanding the nature of the risks and the threats is something that we must all put our minds to. Over the weekend I was reading the briefing paper “Inside the Crevice”, which said that the problem we are attempting to cope with is that political criminals can be as intelligent—if not more so—as those who oppose them. If they win, they simply edit their crimes out of history; if they lose, they melt back into the population to await more favourable circumstances. The risks and threats are enormous, and to not see them as they are would be to seriously not represent our constituencies and our country. This power is for emergency purposes only; it is on the shelf to be used. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

No, actually. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for sounding rather critical of her, although I do not mean it in that way, but there is a degree of hysteria that creeps into these debates. We face a terrorist threat; I have absolutely no doubt that it is a serious terrorist threat, I am deeply pessimistic that we can prevent further terrorist outrages, I fear that the state of the world and the problems that we have in our own country, particularly around Islamic fundamentalism, will mean that we will suffer terrorism for probably quite a prolonged period and I think that people will die. Although there are lots of things that we must try to do to tackle this pernicious problem, that is the reality of the world in which we live. I do not in any way think other than that and it has always been my view.

I also say to the hon. Lady that these are the sorts of problems that this country has in different ways faced at other times in its history. Bearing in mind that, admittedly as a result of war, 60,000 civilians were killed in this country in the course of the second world war without the fabric of society or the state crumbling into dust, it is worth pointing out that human beings are resilient. We have to protect people to the best of our ability and win the argument. I do not like the word “war”. We are in a war. It is a values war that we have to win. We have to do that by persuading people that the benefits of western pluralist democracy—which is what we enjoy in this country as long as we stand up for it—are superior, and, as a result, gradually grind out, exclude and persuade those who have alternative views of their mistake.

It is very easy to become a suicide bomber. Looking at the literature, and looking at the information with which we have been confronted over the past few years, the thing that has struck me most forcefully is the sheer banality of the activity that leads people to making a terrible mess in their kitchens and emerging out of them with material that can kill 60 people on an underground train.

Catching people is, on its own, not a solution. One of the arguments we have over and over again about the criminal justice system in this country—I keep making this point—is that we are making a mistake if we think that we will reduce crime by prosecuting more people. Prosecution and convictions may be important, but ultimately crime is reduced when people stop committing it. Exactly the same thing applies to terrorism.

If we start forfeiting and throwing away the civil liberties that we cherish, I fear that, far from helping ourselves, we will make the problem worse. We will create martyrs and we will create examples, which will be difficult to counter, of young men being released after 39 days with serious mental health problems because they have been detained for that period in unacceptable conditions. A real sense of grievance will be implanted that the state behaves harshly and tyrannically towards people.

I come back to my starting point: there is simply no evidence for such a major departure from our current principles. If there was evidence, as a pragmatist, I would say to the Minister, “I may dislike this intensely, but I would be prepared to contemplate it.” However, we are being asked to carry out this extension and allow the Government to have this as a reserve measure because of a hypothetical set of circumstances that many people think is unlikely to arise. All the evidence shows that when reserve powers exist, they end up being used. For those reasons, too, we should be wary of it.

Coming back to the point where we disagree philosophically, as a Conservative, I derive great comfort from the fact that my forebears upheld the civil liberties we now enjoy, and which transformed this country, sometimes in periods of great conflict, into the free society we enjoy today. We are contemplating measures that my father and grandfather would have considered outrageous. We should bear that in mind, because that is not the sort of society in which I wish my children and grandchildren to be brought up or one that we should be prepared to make sacrifices in order to maintain.

Ms Taylor rose—

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I was about to sit down, but out of courtesy to the hon. Lady who seems so intent on intervening, I will take one more intervention.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

We are not talking in hypothetical terms at all. We have had some of the most serious terrorist actions in Britain over the past few years. They have been shocking for all of us. However, the real point that I want to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that we have a prevent strategy, to which I thought that the whole House had signed up. It is a strategy that involves Muslims and any other groups in Great Britain that want to be involved. I thought that was profoundly about hearts and minds, and would say as a last throw that, although there is not enormous ethnicity difference in my constituency, 2.7 per cent. of my constituency are of Pakistani descent, and not one of those people has spoken to me in critical terms about the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to see my statements as honourable and honest, across the House.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I have no reason to think that the Government’s prevent strategy has been embarked on for other than the most laudable reasons. The hon. Lady may or may not know that I do quite a lot on diversity issues for my party, partly because at one time I considered it had done insufficient work on them; that was one reason why I committed myself to them, and another was that I have a growing ethnic minority community in my constituency, mainly of south Asian origin. Some are Muslims and others have different religious views and are from are from different places. Diversity seems to me a matter of great seriousness and importance, in which we should all be involved.

Some aspects of the prevent strategy are not likely to be very useful. If I have a criticism it is that one cannot compartmentalise the activities and ethos that the state seeks to create in a country in the way the hon. Member for Stockton, South seems, to some extent, to be suggesting. I do not think it works to say that we can erode the traditional civil liberties that have been regarded as key aspects of our national culture and character, but that that does not matter because at the same time we are running a prevent project, seeking to give money here and there, be nice and sort out people’s problems elsewhere. I do not think that works. If I were offered the choice between having a prevent strategy at all or maintaining our civil liberties, my answer would be that the best prevent strategy we could have would be the maintenance of our civil liberties. However, that is not to suggest that a prevent strategy may not be of great value as well. There are aspects of the prevent strategy that I wholeheartedly support.

The best prevent strategy is the way we behave—the leadership that individuals provide in society and, beyond that, the extent to which we free people to express their views to each other. This country is full of moderate people. One of the things that alarms me is that people of moderate viewpoints seem to be increasingly silenced by the regulation, bureaucracy and other things that we progressively foist on them. We should live in a better society, better able to cope with the strains and stresses to which it is subject, if we addressed that issue too. However, to return to the point at issue, the measure will damage community cohesion and our ability to win the battle with terrorism in the longer term. On the evidence available, the benefits that will flow from it are either minimal or non-existent. For those reasons the Government would be wise to withdraw the relevant part of the Bill, and to accept that there is no consensus in the House and, I suspect, no majority for their proposal.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I have a short contribution to make to the debate. I have considerable time for the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and I put it to him that one of the best prevent strategies, if we are using that term, would have been for the country and Parliament not to have endorsed the war in Iraq. That led to far more concern in minority, and particularly Muslim, communities than any system of amendment to pre-charge detention or specific counter-terrorism proposals. I think that we should get that in context.

My starting point in speaking to schedule 1 is that for those of us who served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs there is something of the Groundhog day experience about this debate. In our all too brief scrutiny sessions at the start of the Public Bill Committee, we heard from the same people who gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. As I said in an earlier intervention, I start from the premise that back in June 2006, all parties on the Select Committee accepted that there may well come a point when 28 days is not enough. Collectively, we are better than just praying in aid witness A versus witness B because that becomes a bit of a sterile argument. Hon. Members from all parties support our arguments.

I have only been in this place 11 years, which I suppose is a fair time now, but I have learnt that we are not as good as we could be in scrutinising legislation. That is why there is a strong case for an upper House and I totally reject those Labour Members who go down a unicameral road. I have also learnt that whenever we try to do anything in a hurry we cock it up big time. That might be in relation to much less important issues, but it is true—whether it is the poll tax, the Child Support Agency or dangerous dogs legislation. Goodness knows how many asylum Acts were introduced by the previous Conservative Administration and to some extent built upon by the current Administration.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that what he has just said about lack of scrutiny in this place, rushing measures through, and making what he calls cock ups, applies to bringing a reserved power to the Floor of the House?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

No, not in this case. One could argue about the programme motion, but last autumn the Home Affairs Committee had a very intensive inquiry, which followed an intensive inquiry back in the summer of 2006. That was followed by evidence sessions under the excellent chairmanship of Mr. Bercow and line-by-line deliberation. This is probably one piece of legislation that has been scrutinised well. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that we scrutinise it on the basis of the evidence and that we do not simply pray in aid people who come from different sides of the argument.

As I said in an intervention, the Home Affairs Committee rejected the use of the Civil Contingencies Act last autumn. At the time, we said that we had considered the proposal from Liberty that part 2 of the Act could be used in exceptional circumstances where the complexity of a suspected terrorist plot was likely to overwhelm the capacity of the police and security services. The Home Affairs Committee concluded that

“it would not be sensible for a national state of emergency to be triggered in the middle of a major investigation”.

That was alluded to earlier. I can think of nothing more damaging to a major, sensitive and delicate investigation by the security services and counter-terrorism branch than to declare a national state of emergency—and I know the hon. Member for Newark agrees with me on that. That would only give those who wish us harm advance notice and the ability to bring forward their evil plans. Hon. Members should pause to reflect on whether they want to put their names to such a ludicrous proposal.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am sorry that I did not pick up on this when I replied to the hon. Gentleman earlier, but I am troubled by his reasoning in relation to the grounds for having a state of emergency or arresting people in the first place. The purposes of arrest provided for in the Bill exist not because intelligence suggests that people are about to do something, but because having arrested them, the conclusion has been reached that there are a number of set criteria under paragraph 39 that require an extension to be granted. The argument that declaring a state of emergency after people have been arrested and there appears to be a big plot will in some way alert people to what is going on seems to be entirely specious.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

It is anything but specious. That argument would certainly have gained little support if not outright derision in the private sessions that the Home Affairs Committee had with the security services. Given the complex nature of the networks, lifting somebody alerts a lot of other people at the same time.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

No. The other reason why the CCA is totally inappropriate is that it moves us to this rather crude 58 days, which I would have thought sits rather uncomfortably with those who find 42 days a problem. It also allows for the process to go straight to judicial review—this is why Liberty was happy to put its name to an unintended use of the CCA.

By doing this, we hand that decision, which should rightly and properly be the decision of the Home Secretary, scrutinised by Parliament, straight to the law courts and to the hands of the judiciary. There are things that the judiciary should be doing and there are things that Parliament should be doing, which is yet another reason why this is a clumsy use of legislation for which it was not intended. It is also the reason why the arguments are fundamentally flawed. Those criticisms were borne out by the decisions of Conservative Members on the Home Affairs Committee to reject that way forward.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The hon. Gentleman calls 58 days crude. Why is it less crude than 42?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I do not call 42 days crude, I am just pointing out that those Members who are uncomfortable with 42 appear to be adding their names to the use of legislation which could detain people without trial for 58 days. I am happy if the hon. Gentleman wishes to counter that point.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Perhaps my ears are deceiving me, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that 58 days was crude.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

We can spend an awful lot of the Committee’s time arguing the definition of crude. I should have thought that those people uncomfortable with 42 days would have been even more uncomfortable with 58 days.

It is important to put the record straight. I have a huge amount of time for the hon. Member for Monmouth. We are at the absolute polar opposites of the political spectrum, but that makes our relationship all the more interesting and I am looking forward to visiting his constituency. But he did mislead the Committee on the evidence given by Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, during our evidence session on the 22 April. In answer to a question from the hon. Gentleman at column 53, Ken Macdonald did not, as the hon. Gentleman sought to point out, say that he was uncomfortable. He refused to express a view. He said:

“It is not for us”—

meaning the DPP—

“to say whether we do or do not want legislation, and I am not prepared to express a view about that—that is not my job.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 53, Q136.]

I raise this only to put on the record what actually occurred on the afternoon of 22 April, not people’s misinterpretations of it.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Let me be clear. I was not referring to the evidence that Ken Macdonald gave to this Committee on 22 April, I was referring to the original evidence that he gave to the Home Affairs Committee—at which I am sure the hon. Member was present—where he made his discomfort quite clear.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Ken Macdonald, Director of Public Prosecutions, is on the record as saying:

“It is not for us to say whether we do or do not want legislation, and I am not prepared to express a view about that”.

I take Sir Ken Macdonald at his word.

It is also worth saying that in answer to Question 149 at column 57 about whether or not the Government proposals are human rights-compliant, Ken Macdonald said:

“My view is that this provision would be lawful if sufficiently controlled by the judiciary, which it would be.”

He then went on to say:

“I am quite satisfied that this provision would be lawful. As I have said, if it was in law, we would use it if we ever found it necessary to do so.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 57, Q149.]

That takes me back to where I started. The nub of this debate is how we legislate, and whether we legislate in the aftermath and in haste or whether we take advantage of the calm before—sadly—an inevitable storm.

It was interesting to hear Conservative Members’ criticisms of the Government’s economic policy as the credit crunch bites and the problems from America find their way across the Atlantic. Apparently the Government, whom I support, failed to fix the roof when the sun was shining. At the moment, the sun is shining to the extent that we are not, as far as I am aware, about to face a major terrorist outrage in the next few weeks. But who knows? While the sun is shining, however, why do we not fix the legislative roof in a sensible way, rather than waiting for the inevitable panic—the tabloid and media outcry—that will follow the next inevitable terrorist outrage?

I come now to the previous extensions of pre-charge detention. Again, the Home Affairs Committee looked at the issue in some detail. In 1974, we saw an increase from 24 to 48 hours. The hon. Member for Newark helpfully drew some parallels from his experience in Northern Ireland—it was a different era, but there are lessons to be learned. The Terrorism Act 2000 extended the maximum period of detention to seven days, and we had a further change in 2003. That was under the rule of Lord Goldsmith, who—I am very keen to put this on the public record—was one of the more appalling witnesses to come before us. Hon. Members will forgive my irreverence, but I have a problem with Ministers who discover principles after they leave office. I remember him telling us, in answer to questions from myself, that there was a good case for going from seven to 14 days, given the technology that was increasingly becoming available to terrorist networks. The problem that he has with the current proposals is that he no longer thinks that that process is happening: he thinks that we have somehow reached a ceiling, that the terrorist networks are not learning, that there are no developments in the internet and in communications techniques, that international terrorism is set in aspic and that nothing is improving. He therefore thinks that we need to stay where we are. It was all right to change things while Lord Goldsmith was drawing a ministerial salary and he could make the arguments for a change, but now that he is not, the terms of the debate have somehow changed.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I wonder whether I could give the hon. Gentleman the quote from Sir Ken Macdonald to the Home Affairs Committee. He said:

“I think an analysis might lead you to conclude that, if after 25 or 26 days you could not find a reasonable suspicion to justify a charging decision, it might be quite difficult for a prosecutor to persuade a court that, even though there is not presently reasonable suspicion to justify the threshold charge, a man or a woman should be kept in custody for a longer period, so that is a practical problem which could face prosecutors.”

Does that sound like an endorsement of the Government’s proposals?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The hon. Gentleman is getting hung up on this point. I am not seeking to pray in aid Sir Ken Macdonald on one side of the argument or the other—I am just saying that it is fundamentally flawed for the hon. Gentleman to do so. Given the five safeguards built into the Bill, a judge would not approve an extension beyond 28 days in such circumstances. The police will not automatically receive the right to detain people for 42 days; safeguards are built in at every stage of the process. Even with our current limit of 28 days, there have been times—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—when the judiciary has refused a further extension on the same grounds. The hon. Gentleman should have no fears in that respect.

The proposal is temporary, time limited and subject to judicial and parliamentary oversight. It has a number of safeguards built in, one of which involves a measure of parliamentary oversight that, as hon. Members will be aware, I am not happy about. I hope that I have argued clearly that if we extend pre-charge detention—doing so is a pretty serious thing—we should carry the can as a Parliament and as parliamentarians; we should not sub-contract these matters to the judiciary, judicial processes or judicial reviews, as we would with the CCA.

My problem is with having a debate after 30 days. We can have very little impact on the process after 30 days. We cannot debate the circumstances of the individual under arrest, and it is quite right and proper that we do not, so what would have changed between seven days and 30 days? What would that debate be about? It would be a pretty heavy debate for us to have in Parliament, and no Home Secretary would survive losing the vote—certainly more than once. It would be about the security situation facing us and whether the Government and the Home Secretary were right to respond to a request for an extension of powers, possibly to 42 days, from a given chief constable and—hon. Members should take some comfort from this—the Director of Public Prosecutions. In fact, that is safeguard number six while Sir Ken Macdonald is in place.

We have had sensible, measured debates in Parliament in precisely those circumstances. We could not talk or mention the individuals who were arrested for the events in Glasgow and Haymarket, but in the aftermath of the Government’s statement a reading of Hansard shows that we had sensible debates on the way forward and good contributions from both sides of the House. Look at the debates on the extension of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which I think ended in 1998 or 1999. I certainly remember two debates in this House in the time that I have been here. We were not discussing individual IRA or loyalist atrocities, we were discussing the security situation in Northern Ireland and if it was right and proper for the powers to be extended for a further year. It is in that context that we could have the debate if the Government’s proposals go through. If we are having that debate in that context—I appeal to the Minister to listen to this point, certainly if he wants my vote on the Floor of the House, which I suspect he might—we should bring forward real parliamentary oversight that means something, because there is no reason why we cannot have it at a much earlier stage.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Following on from that point, given that the request from the chief constable and the DPP will most likely be based on intelligence and in line with the Bill asking for the process of changing that intelligence into evidence, it is highly unlikely that those individuals will put before this House even general intelligence of the situation so that we can have a proper debate about it. This is about intelligence, so how are we, in this House, to debate whether it is appropriate to use those powers at that time?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I am rather sad about that intervention because the hon. Gentleman clearly has not absorbed anything that I said earlier in developing the argument. We have had debates on terrorist situations and threats to life and limb and to civil society in the context of extending the Northern Ireland legislation many times before, and we are capable of doing so again without falling foul of the sub judice rule, which is the prime criticism of the parliamentary oversight. I believe that we can do it.

I struggle with the concept that our particular system of jurisprudence and pre-charge detention is a trigger for al-Qaeda targeting Britain. I found the evidence from Lord Dear unconvincing in that regard. We have seen appalling loss of life as a result of al-Qaeda atrocities in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, Kenya, the USA, Spain and the UK. Those are jurisdictions with totally different legal and pre-charge detention systems. There is no golden, black or evil thread linking those jurisdictions, and to claim that there is is utter nonsense.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

That was not how I perceived Lord Dear’s views. The hon. Gentleman may be misrepresenting him. Surely Lord Dear’s point was that al-Qaeda, or whatever organisation it wishes to masquerade as on a particular day, is sufficiently flexible, thoughtful and determined to use, measure and tailor its methods to counteract any particular jurisdiction that it is trying to unsettle. I do not think that our enemies see a particular black thread linking us, but they do have an ability to take advantage of our weakness.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I do not think that our points are necessarily contradictory. Lord Dear is not the only one to propose that somewhere in a cave in Waziristan somebody is poring over legal books and making comparisons between the French system of pre-trial detention, the Spanish system and the British system and deciding on a target. I would suggest that major events and iconic symbols of western civilisation are far more likely to be targeted irrespective of where they are based or the system of jurisprudence.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but is the point not the one that I made earlier. I am not talking about people in Waziristan looking through legal books. The evidence seems to suggest that those who have been committing atrocities in this country are living in towns and other places rather close to him and me—in some cases, on the very edge of my constituency, where ordnance was buried in woods. Those individuals went through our state education system, as provided for by the Government, and are sufficiently alienated and wicked to want to kill people. Surely the point is that adding to senses of injustice and undermining our own values, which we must assert in our own society, is unlikely to be conducive to converting people from the error of their ways.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

The hon. and learned Gentleman and I share, if not a common boundary, a common region, and my constituency too has had experience of Metropolitan police counter-terrorism operations. However, he conveniently omitted a common thread from his intervention: although educated in the state system and, at some point, appearing quite anglicised—if I may use that word—many such individuals feel sufficiently alienated to spend time at terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Waziristan. Furthermore, he did not mention the controlling minds and willing troops that target individuals—that is how terrorist networks operate. It is absurd to suggest that people decide to become suicide bombers having become alienated in a comprehensive school in Buckingham and that there is no link to global Islamic networks. I am sure that he is far too intelligent to make that argument.

The hon. and learned Gentleman brings me nicely to my final point about diversity and the impact on minority communities. I am pretty conscious of this stuff. I am in my 25th year of public life in Reading, which is a diverse community; it is probably as diverse as, if not more so than, any of the constituencies represented by members of this Committee—[Interruption.] Not Harrow, but most of them. I am acutely aware that what we do and say in this place impacts on people outside and how they see their place in the world through their end of the telescope. Most of my Muslim constituents—they are primarily of Kashmiri and Pakistani origin—are looking for security, to live their lives in peace and for the state to provide protection from those who would do them as much harm as they would the rest of us. Do not forget that Muslims were victims of 7/7 as well, and will almost certainly be victims in future terrorist atrocities. However, I do not detect a broad undercurrent of concern about us doing the right thing to protect this country and our homes from those who would do us harm.

The terms of this vigorous debate are so much more intelligent than the Government’s approach, supported by the tabloid press, of trying to face down those who are uncomfortable with 90 days. I am honest enough to admit and to put on the record that I regret voting for 90 days. It was a pretty crude operation by Her Majesty’s Government to bulldoze through a proposal rather than look weak on terrorism. I do not think that it was good government or that it would have been the right thing to do—[Interruption.] Instead of chuntering, I wish that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield would be a little more gracious. I do not believe that it would have been the right thing to do. However, I commend the Minister and the Home Secretary on their genuine attempts to build a consensus. I am still looking for the Opposition to come forward with proposals.

I read in an article by the hon. Member for Newark:

“The solution must lie in a combination of extra resources, canny adaptation of the Civil Contingencies Act and a real willingness to set this issue above party politics.”

The proposal before us is almost unrecognisable from the crude, blunt instrument that was the 90 days proposal. The quality of debate is much enhanced. The level of parliamentary scrutiny is intense, and I have respect for those Members across the political divide, both in this Committee and in the Home Affairs Committee, with whom I have worked. I have enjoyed working with them on the issue. I know from private conversations, which I will not reveal, the core instincts of many Conservative Members on the issue. The shadow Home Secretary boasts at private Tory party meetings that he personally defeated Tony Blair on the issue—Tony Blair’s only defeat in Parliament. If it were not a badge of honour for the shadow Home Secretary, and if we were prepared to grow up a little and reach across to each other, we could deliver consensus, but that would require the Opposition to come forward with proposals, rather than carping about the proposals that are on the table.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman underestimates and misunderstands the principles on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) has stood consistently on the matter. The other thing that I find odd is the hon. Gentleman’s reference to “consensus”. We had an intense and difficult debate on the move from 14 to 90 days, and it seemed to me that a consensus emerged—the 28-day consensus. Some of my colleagues and some of his wanted to stick at 14 days and some would have been happier to go back to seven. Some wanted 56 and some may have wanted 90. The truth is that, after extensive debate, the will of the House could not have made itself clearer. I find it peculiar that the Government now appear to be in difficulty in getting a majority in the House for their proposals. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is because the Government have decided—for reasons that remain unclear to me—to break the consensus. As he talks about consensus, why not stick to what we have?

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. There is clearly no consensus about what constitutes a consensus. My consensus is clear—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is when people agree with one another.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

It is exactly as the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position. Let us talk about a group of people who agreed with each other, including Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members. The consensus was there. We would not have known it from the press coverage of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, but let us bear in mind that two Liberal Democrat members, the whole of the Conservative team, and all bar one—inevitably—of the Labour team on the Home Affairs Committee agreed the following:

“If, in these exceptional circumstances”—

having rejected the CCA—

“a temporary extension of the pre-charge detention period is deemed essential to secure successful prosecutions of terrorist suspects, the Government should consider building support for proposals that effectively reform the powers of the CCA, secure Parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight, but stop short of the requirement to declare a full-scale state of emergency. We urge the Government to begin urgent discussions with other parties on this basis.”

That is the consensus: accepting that there will be exceptional circumstances, and that we need temporary and reserve powers. That was agreed to by Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour Members. What has changed?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield for setting out in a clear, methodical and erudite manner some of the basic principles that apply to our judicial system and some of its history. He went back to the 17th century, I think. I shall not go back that far, as we do not have the time. It is certainly worth considering the recent history of the time that I have spent in the House, including the Acts that we have passed and the way in which the number of days’ detention has increased from seven to 14 to 28. We then had the debate about whether the limit should move to 90 days, and we are now revisiting the matter with the prospect of a 42-day period.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we on the Opposition Benches are pragmatists. That is true; we are liberal pragmatists, and if the Government had deployed convincing arguments that there was a need for a 42-day limit, we would have had to consider them carefully and decide whether the proposal required our support. I am afraid that that is not the case.

The hon. Member for Reading, West, said that we should not be in the business of quoting people, although I note that he went on to quote Sir Ken Macdonald when it suited him, and to quote many reports to support his own arguments. I make no apologies for quoting people, because what the people who are central to the decision-making, legal and policing processes have to say is pertinent to the debate. They are the people who will have to deliver.

We would expect organisations such as Liberty to have a clear view on the extension, and my first quotation is that Liberty says that it would have expected the Government to give

“urgent and compelling reasons for revisiting the issue”

just two years after it was last debated, but that in its view there had been no such justification.

We know that the Home Affairs Committee has said that the police and the Government have not made a convincing case for extension beyond 28 days. The hon. Member for Reading, West, who is no longer in his place, quoted Sir Ken Macdonald a number of times, but he did not quote something that Sir Ken said in our evidence session. In answer to a question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, he said that in his experience

“we have managed comfortably with 28 days, and have therefore not asked for an increase. It is possible to set up hypothetical situations in which you might have nothing after 28 days but suddenly get evidence after that time. I repeat: anything is possible”.

Anything is indeed possible, but he went on to say that

“the question is whether it is remotely likely.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 58, Q150.]

Reading between the lines, he was clearly saying that in his view, it was not remotely likely. The Director of Public Prosecutions is key to the decision-making process, and his view is that the extension is not required.

We also heard evidence from Lord Goldsmith, whose views the hon. Member for Reading, West rather dismissed, commenting adversely on the fact that now Lord Goldsmith is no longer a Minister, he seems to adopt a position different from the one that he held as a Minister. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman held the same view of Lord Goldsmith when he was in the Government, or whether he has changed his view on the former Attorney-General. Lord Goldsmith was asked whether post-charge questioning, the use of intercepts and plea bargaining would change the need for a longer period of pre-charge detention. He said that he did not think that there was a need for a longer period even without some of those things. The evidence is that people who have a fundamental and significant role have made clear their position on the decision between 28 and 42 days.

We might look at history. In the middle of the IRA terror campaign, the limit was seven days. I shall not draw exact parallels between the two situations. We are clearly in a much more challenging technological situation as far as obtaining evidence and de-encrypting material are concerned. It is interesting that one of the witnesses who gave evidence to us was clear that the technology available to the secret service and the police force is also moving forward at pace and keeping up to speed with what is available to terrorists.

A number of hon. Members have pointed out that this proposal could be counter-productive. The Home Office’s own equality and impact assessment has highlighted that Muslim groups said that pre-charge detention might put at risk information coming from members of the community in future. The proposal could therefore have a detrimental effect on the availability of such information. The European Court of Human Rights has questioned whether the proposal would be in breach of human rights law and the Race Relations Act 1976

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It was the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for that, and for his best wishes on my birthday. What better way to spend it than on this critical subject?

We have discussed whether there are better alternatives. I think that all Opposition members of the Committee agree that the alternatives and additions that have been put forward are not silver bullets. No one claims that intercept will be the silver bullet. No one claims that post-charge questioning with appropriate judicial oversight will provide a silver bullet. However, those provisions all add to the tools and techniques that are available to allay our concerns.

It has been said that there are safeguards in this process, in particular the role of Parliament. Very few of our witnesses thought that that would provide much help with scrutiny. Lord Goldsmith said very clearly:

“On parliamentary scrutiny, I confess to being rather troubled... I do not understand on what basis Parliament could decide whether it is right to extend the period.”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 65-66, Q174.]

Again, that is the view of someone who is very knowledgeable on this subject and who believes that the safeguards are at best illusory.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I notice that no amendments have been tabled on this point and that is entirely a matter for the hon. Gentleman. Were this system to prevail, would he sit in the camp of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West in bringing the vote and scrutiny of Parliament earlier to seven or 10 days, would he seek to eradicate parliamentary scrutiny altogether or would he do it in another way? Will he explore that issue for a moment for my enlightenment?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for his intervention. That is something that we would need to look at should the matter arise. I am sure that he will appreciate that we have not tabled any amendments because we did not want to give credibility to the Government’s proposal. Tabling amendments suggesting ways of improving on the matter would give support to a position that my party cannot support.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Reading, West could not join us for the speech subsequent to his own. What he was proposing was bringing an unacceptable process forward. It would still be an unacceptable process. The only merit of bringing it forward would be that at least that process, however inadequate, would take place before the entire custody period, which we find so objectionable, had been completed. That is the problem with the Government proposal.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank my hon. Friend for underlining that bringing the process forward would not address the fundamental flaw of the Government proposal.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

The hon. Gentleman states that he has not tabled any amendments because to do so would give the Government’s position credibility. Can we therefore assume that there will be no Liberal Democrat amendments on Report?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will have to wait and see. On the question about amendments and 28 or 42 days, our position is that we do not seek to amend something that we think is unamendable. We do not want to see it take place.

We are willing to be pragmatic. Members will be aware that when the Minister gave evidence before us on 24 April, he was given the opportunity in responding to a question to put on the record any appropriate information about how the particular figure of 42 days was arrived at. If he had given the Committee a convincing body of evidence about the reasons for the change, it would have made it much more difficult for us to define our position. I have looked carefully at his response. He was asked to provide precise information about the criteria used to arrive at 42 days, and his response was:

“It is a tragedy that this has boiled down to some sort of bingo around the number of days as that is almost the last element that matters.”

I am not sure whether it is, but if this debate revolves around some sort of bingo, it is because there has been a distinct lack of hard evidence from the Government to enable Opposition Members to come to any conclusion other than the one supported by many senior witnesses: that there is no compelling evidence for 42 days, and that we should remain at 28 days. That is certainly the position that we on the Opposition Benches will maintain.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I have no doubt that there is a commonality of purpose across the House. I am sure that every Member wants to establish measures that will enable the pursuit of terrorists and prevent acts of terrorism. I am disappointed that we seem unable to achieve consensus. The reserve powers asked for are to be used in an emergency and temporarily, should they be required. I was of the belief that that is an appropriate request to the House. That does not seem to be the case, according to Opposition Members.

I have attempted in the days since we took evidence to consider the arguments made by many in this room about why they believe that there are other, equally valuable opportunities to pursue a prevent strategy. I shall limit my words—not totally—to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, particularly the threshold test. It was spoken about a great deal. I am not a lawyer; it has taken me a while to understand where people are coming from. Equally, I want to say a word or two about protecting and enhancing civil liberties.

I want to say to everybody that I am appalled by the statement that the Bill is about the Government looking tough on terrorism. That is an appalling idea. I hope that whenever we move into the realm of risk and threat to our people and our country, the last thing that we want to do is look tough. My hope is that we can establish the right judicial process and the right parliamentary scrutiny process, not that we can look tough. That is an obscene way of putting things.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I am delighted to hear those comments made by the hon. Lady. Does she share my concern that the comments were being made by Government spokesmen, who gloatingly told newspapers that Dave—presumably a reference to the leader of the Conservative party—was not positioning himself correctly on the issue? It was as though this was some sort of game in which people had to position themselves, rather than being the matter of great importance that the hon. Lady has described.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I will always resist a bat and ball game. I have been here for 11 years and I know that to achieve serious legislation I will constantly and absolutely focus on the deliberation to achieve the best, and not play some political bat and ball game, which the greater majority of the British public would totally resist, putting all our comments in the bin.

We are attempting to understand the risk, the threat. We are attempting to put together a legal process and structure that will give the police, the judiciary and the agencies, the best controlled manner and the best powers to fit their needs, should that be required. I know that he was not, and probably still is not, the most popular person, but I say to everyone in the House that Rumsfeld had it in a word, a phrase, when he said that the absolute fact is—[Interruption.]—I am being careful. The fact is that we just do not know; there are “Unknown unknowns.” That is frightening for all of us. I do not say that to scare people, I say it to acknowledge that we have young men from good homes with a reasonable professional life and families whom they prize, acting as suicide bombers. Those are certainly unknown unknowns.

It is crucial for me to restate some of the information produced by the “Inside the Crevice” report. The statements made were clear and will be acknowledged across the House. When terrorists have a mission in life, whether because they are angry, feeling guilty or have serious dislocation, they will be willing to risk anything to realise their objectives. Understanding that statement is crucially important.

On that note, I want to move carefully to the Civil Contingencies Act and the threshold test. I have carefully read all the statements made on this test from across the House; the belief of some that it is valuable and necessary to achieve what we wish, and the views of others who believe that it is not satisfactory. I have come to the conclusion that it is not satisfactory on two bases. First, if we used the threshold test—again, I am sure that I shall be corrected and I am looking at the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield as I speak—and if we charged a person with whatever we have at that point in time, it would be hugely unsatisfactory. It is more satisfactory to charge that person with something that approaches the criminality of which it is reasonably suspected that they are guilty. On a prima facie case, we would present that charge, and that is more satisfactory because of the use of language. Again, I quote Lord Carlile who referred to

“something approaching the criminality of which it is reasonably suspected that they are guilty”——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2008; c. 122, Q323.]

Here we are, using the words that we can and attempting to understand where we are with intelligence gathering. It is a monstrously complex and staggeringly difficult area to get presentable, evidential evidence. We are struggling to deliver and develop this argument, so that we all see where we are coming from.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I accept that evidence can be difficult to get, but the overwhelming evidence from terrorist investigations that have taken place suggests that often, evidence secured within the period prescribed by law—or afterwards, as it can always be collated after charge—has been sufficiently good to persuade people to plead guilty. If one looks at the DPP’s record and the rate of conviction in these cases, it is incredibly high. I wonder how that squares with the hon. Lady’s position.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

It only squares because Lord Carlile makes it clear to me that if one produces holding charges one will inevitably miss the real substance of evidence that could be out there to be collected.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The DPP made it absolutely clear that the Crown Prosecution Service does not use holding charges. It could not have been clearer. Although we are going on to debate post-charge questioning, which I support with proper safeguards, the evidence is that, as terrorists very often do not answer many questions, questioning itself is not the key issue. The fact is that the Crown Prosecution Service has been able in the time available, so that the DPP is satisfied with the present time limits, to obtain compelling evidence without holding charges, which enabled it to convict people of very serious offences.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I have read what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. My concern is that producing evidence, achieving evidence in a global or local, familiar or unfamiliar environment, and sometimes in languages for which we have few translators, is monstrously difficult. Acquiring evidence that can be produced, that is absolutely evidential, that is totally factual, is extremely difficult. Although the DPP stated that holding charges are not used, I do not think that they would not be used if push came to shove.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

The Minister used the phrase “monstrously difficult” to gather evidence. Will the hon. Lady cast her mind back to Operation Overt on evidence gathering of a year or so ago. This alleged plot was more complex, more sinister probably, than the 9/11 plot in America. If the evidence is so difficult to get, why did so few people require the whole 28-day period before they were charged?

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. The evidence gathering on Operation Overt was frankly scintillating. It was an amazing feat. It delivered in the most amazing manner. [ Interruption. ] All right. I will not go there.

This is just one example. I think there are many more. The unknown unknowns are an absolute for me. I am not prepared to move with the hon. Gentleman on the one that proves the case.

This is quite a difficult area on threshold tests. I see them as hugely unsatisfactory. I accept what Lord Carlile is saying.

I want to say something on human rights. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield made a statement that in my previous questioning to him I was suggesting that human rights were secondary. Nothing of the sort. They are precious. They are inviolable. They are very much more protected when you have a careful, judicial process that examines and supports their maintenance.

The procedure in the Bill is cumbersome but appropriate—to have a senior judge. I would not have any problem, Mr. Bercow, with an inquisitorial senior judge looking at the evidence to say whether or not seven further days should be given. I would see that as appropriate so that on extended detention, should that be the case, we achieve what we all want to achieve, that is failed terrorist plots.

We are being asked to support powers on an emergency basis, on a case by case basis, when it is believed by the police and by a judge, who will make a judgment on the evidence produced, that we need to extend the time that is allowed for pre-questioning. It is an emergency. It is temporary. I hear the cynicism about parliamentary oversight. I, too, had a question mark over it. However, it is a question mark no more. The requirement to have something on the shelf when necessary, if necessary, is totally appropriate. I ask the House to consider the matter again. The measure is temporary and for emergency purposes only. The pre-charge investigations are appropriate and I hope that we will find a way to support the extension to 42 days.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

May I say that I feel a very strong commitment to law and order and to taking any measures that are required to tackle terrorism and other forms of crime? Many hon. Members on this Committee have grappled with terrorism—and probably quite literally with terrorists—and they know far more than I about the importance of dealing with them in whatever manner is required. One of my own colleagues said that I had a law and order policy that consisted of, “Bang the bounders up and throw away the key.” It is a badge that I wear with some pride. I have gone on record as saying that the Conservative party does not go far enough in many aspects of its law and order policy. I want to see more prisons being built and more people in them serving longer sentences. While I feel that the Conservative party would do a much better job than Labour Members in that regard, it does not go far enough for me.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I look forward to giving away to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, but let me finish this point. I have had many fruitful and uplifting conversations with him, but never have I said in private to him—and he will confirm this—that I support the Government’s recommendations on this particular point. I have always said, “More people in prison and longer sentences, yes, but let us see them convicted of a crime before we lock them up.”

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I thank the hon. Gentleman and I also apologise to the Committee for leaving. I have a member of staff who has been taken sick and I had to make a couple of phone calls. I have a difficult relationship with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, but in this case I meant no discourtesy to him.

In response to the hon. Member for Monmouth, I accept fully that he has never even indicated support for the Government’s proposals, but could he clarify a matter for me? I think that he is a proper Tory, but did he really call for every householder to be issued with taser guns? If he did, I would say that he is a proper Tory.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I do not know, Mr. Bercow, whether you are going to allow me to go down this route, but I have been thinking about getting a Westminster Hall debate on that. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman is correct, but, as always, there is some substance in his comments. However, it is not true that I called for all homes to be issued with tasers. I will not be allowed to pursue the matter at the moment, so we will have to come back to it.

It is also not true, as far as I am aware, that any member of the Conservative party has called for the sus laws to be brought back. If they have, could they make themselves known to me because even I have not called for that. However, I have suggested changes, both formally and informally, to the current stop-and-search legislation that would enable the police to do their job more effectively.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. The hon. Gentleman applied an admirable self-denying ordinance in respect of the challenge made to him by the hon. Member for Reading, West . That now needs to be replicated in a similar self-denying ordinance as far as sus laws are concerned.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I thank you, Mr. Bercow. Let me go back to the evidence taken by the Home Affairs Committee. I went into that Committee with a very open mind, prepared to listen to the evidence and, if necessary, to give some support to the Government’s position. As Labour Members know, not one single person who was giving evidence, with the exception of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was able to come up with a cogent and coherent argument for supporting an extension to 28 days. One of the most powerful pieces of evidence that we heard came from one of the survivors of the original tube bombs, Rachel North, who made it quite clear that in her opinion it would be totally wrong if we used that incident to take away people’s civil liberties in a way not seen in this country for many years. The hon. Member for Reading, West was quite enthusiastic about quoting Sir Ken Macdonald’s recent evidence to this Committee. He was rather more reticent to point out that Sir Ken Macdonald made it very clear in his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that he did not support this legislation and could see no need for it. I have already read out one of Sir Ken Macdonald’s quotes and I see no need to do so again. However, I put it on record, and I put it to Government Members, that Sir Ken Macdonald did not support an extension beyond 28 days and that fact was made clear.

It was therefore disappointing that it was suggested subsequently, on Second Reading, that there was some kind of consensus between Sir Ken Macdonald’s comments and the Government’s position. There is a consensus among all of us that terrorism is a bad thing and that we must do all that we can to defeat it, but to suggest that two sides of the argument were somehow one and the same was completely unfair and untrue to the evidence that Sir Ken Macdonald originally gave us.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the timing of the evidence that we took from Rachel North? As all hon. Members would agree, it was a very powerful and evocative performance from her, but my recollection is that her argument was that there was no case to be made in the light of the 7/7 bombings for a blanket extension in pre-charge detention powers, which is precisely what the Home Affairs Committee resolved and precisely what the Government’s proposal is. Furthermore, does he not accept that Rachel North’s evidence was given before the Government’s proposals, the safeguards and the temporary judicial oversight were put on the table?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I will certainly accept the latter point; that is factually correct. However, my strong impression of the evidence that Rachel North gave was that she was against any measures that would diminish the civil liberties of people in this country as a result of what took place on the tube. I see that the hon. Member for Reading, West is nodding his head in agreement.

It has been said many times that, if we go ahead with this proposal, we will have the longest period of detention in the civilised world. However, I thought that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made a very important point when he drew attention to the difference between a police cell and a prison. I had not even considered that point until he made it. Many of us—in fact all of us—will have visited prisons in our constituencies or elsewhere; I have certainly done so myself on a number of occasions, because of issues within one of the prisons in my constituency. I have been to several prisons and I must say that the conditions that I have seen in all of them have been very good. They are not somewhere that I would like to spend any time myself, of course, but they are certainly not the Dickensian hellholes that many members of the public who have not been inside such establishments seem to imagine.

However, I have also done several shifts working in custody in my role as a special constable, which I have mentioned; indeed, I have probably mentioned it too much in these situations. I must say that, although I come at this subject as what the hon. Member for Reading, West might call a traditional Tory, during those shifts I end up feeling rather sorry for people who spend too long in prison cells. People go in there and the only thing that they have access to is a copy of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which is not a particularly riveting read, or a Bible, Koran or whichever book represents their religion. The reality is that people are going into a windowless environment where every single movement is monitored on a television screen and they have no access to books or any other reading material, television or anything else. In fact, even the conditions in other European countries are markedly better than that.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I was going to intervene earlier on the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, but it is very clear under law that no one will spend more than 14 days in police custody, unless they choose to. The automatic assumption is that after 14 days—as has been the case with those held for beyond 14 days—they are removed to what the hon. Gentleman quite rightly suggested is a more conducive environment in prison, rather than remaining in police cells. I do not want the illusion to exist that somehow, all the way through to 28 days, the time in detention is spent in police cells without some connivance on the individual’s part.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification and I must say that I have a great amount of respect for him and for the passionate beliefs that he holds. However, I still put it to him that 14 days in a police cell followed by the conditions that I think apply in a category A prison, which is where I assume people would be taken after 14 days and where conditions are obviously much stronger than those in a category B, C or D prison, would still quite possibly lead to the sort of mental problems that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred to earlier. I have not been inside a category A prison in my life and that is probably something that I will have to rectify.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am not seeking to diminish the impact—mental, psychological or otherwise—that a couple of days’ detention could have on an individual. It is not just a question of the longevity of the detention. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point about 14 days in police custody being excessive is well made. There might be a position that we can and should debate and discuss. I simply seek to make the point that it is not the case in absolute terms that 28 days is spent in police cells rather than in proper custody in a prison.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I am happy to accept that.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The Minister is right. As a result of a debate that we had during the passage of the 2005 Act, when I expressed great concern and said that 28 days in a police cell would be entirely unacceptable, a regime was put in place to allow for people to be moved into prison after 14 days. I do not know the details of the time that was spent in police cells or elsewhere in the case that I cited, but the fact is that serious mental health anxieties were registered. That might have had a lot to do with the nature of the uncertainty that surrounds a person in such conditions, and that would apply as much in prison as in a police cell.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. We have aired the matter, and I am grateful for the clarification from the Minister. Suffice it to say that most of the people I have seen end up falling asleep and waking up with a headache when they emerge from police custody. I would be uncomfortable with anyone having to spend 14 days, let alone 28, in such conditions. I am grateful that they do not have to, but it is interesting that in other European countries such as the Netherlands, which I visited recently, there are much better conditions for people who are held in police custody. However, I suspect that you, Mr. Bercow, will not welcome my veering off down that road. To conclude, it might be worth the Home Affairs Committee taking further evidence on this point.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and there is absolutely no doubt that every Member is nodding and agreeing with the things that he is saying. However, I put it to him seriously—it is difficult to make this statement—that 800 people were seriously injured and 52 were dead after 7/7. How does that context compare with the one that he sets out?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I do not want to be drawn too much further on this matter. It has traditionally been, and probably still is, a form of punishment to put people who misbehave in prisons into some form of solitary confinement. It has a marked effect on the individual, and to put somebody into solitary confinement for 28 days without any access to reading materials, television or anything else that could stimulate their mind could be said to amount to torture.

As the hon. Lady will recognise, I come at this as somebody who has not said much during my career about the hardships suffered by prisoners. By and large, I think that they do quite well out of life, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of 14 days, let alone 28, in conditions without any form of mental stimulation, not least because if, at some stage, it could be proven by a lawyer that what the person had gone through amounted to some form of torture, any confessions made or any statements given to the police could be invalidated. There are practical reasons for looking at the issue as well as moral considerations. In fairness, this is the first time that we have considered the point. It has not been raised in Select Committee evidence, and we might look at it further at a later date.

I am concerned that if this proposal goes ahead, despite all the safeguards that have been put in place—I welcome them, inasmuch as if we are to have this in the Bill, it would be better to have some safeguards rather than none at all—we might see in 12 months’ time some form of tidying-up exercise that might remove some of the safeguards, which many of us accept are, to some extent, impractical and might even be ruled illegal.

If we introduce this sort of legislation to deal with terrorism, how long will it be before it is extended to deal with organised crime? Arguably, organised crime affects many more lives than terrorism does. Let us consider people who are involved in child pornography. International rings make vast amounts of money.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I always think that there is a slight disadvantage in coming back to Committee in these situations, because having marshalled my arguments and worked myself up into a lather towards the climax of the previous sitting, I suddenly find that coming back from lunch, everyone is in a different frame of mind. However, I shall briefly recap on the point that I was making when the interruption occurred.

I felt that if the legislation were enacted, it would not be long before further legislation—perhaps what the Government have called “tidying-up legislation”—removed some of the safeguards that are being put in place. I welcome the safeguards, but I would rather not have to have them, and do without the whole thing. I fear that if we detain people for up to 42 days to question them on terrorism offences without charging them, in all probability it will not be long before we follow the argument to its logical conclusion and allow people to be detained for up to 42 days for questioning about a range of other offences. The offences meriting such a measure might involve, as I mentioned earlier, child pornography rings, organised crime, drug dealers and people traffickers. They are all examples of serious criminals whose actions have affected, and continue to affect, far more people than the terrorists who committed the horrendous atrocities in London in the past few years. Logically, if we allow terrorists to be detained in that fashion, there is no reason why we should not allow such serious criminals to be detained in that fashion, too.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s argument, and I understand his logic, but he has missed an important factor: first, terrorists, by definition, are people who are going to destroy human lives; and secondly, we have received considerable evidence from the police saying that in effect, pre-emptive intervention is highly necessary. They mean that they need to arrest people before they would normally arrest people who carry out illegal activity in other areas. In other words, the police are able to secure evidence more easily before they make the arrest when they deal with other crimes. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that is a valid point?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I certainly accept that terrorists destroy people’s lives, but surely the hon. Gentleman will accept my line of reasoning that people involved in child abuse, drug dealers and people traffickers all destroy people’s lives, too. They are destroying, and have destroyed, people’s lives, and they have probably—in fact, almost certainly—destroyed more lives than terrorists have over the past five years, so if pre-emptive detention would work against terrorists, it would work against those people, too. I should like those people taken off the streets, and it would be hard to argue against using methods that, if the Government are right, would be effective against terrorists, and could be used against other people, too, such as other serious criminals who have committed serious offences and destroyed more lives than terrorists have over the past few years.

If Labour Members are so concerned about terrorists, why did they enact the Human Rights Act 1998, which has caused so many of the problems that they are now, belatedly, trying to address? The Act enabled people, whom we knew had already been involved in terrorism, to enter this country, claim asylum and use the full panoply of legal aid and lawyers to argue that they should be allowed to remain here. The Government got themselves tied up in knots because they called for people to be thrown out of the country but found that they could not do so. They then wanted people to be detained indefinitely but found that they could not do that either—all because of the Human Rights Act. It has become a charter for foreign terrorists to enter this country and enjoy apparent immunity from prosecution. I say to Labour Members that, rather than introduce a draconian piece of legislation that will strip all British subjects of the rights that they have enjoyed since the 17th century, they should admit that the Human Rights Act was a mistake and that it has given protection to people whom we know are involved in terrorism. They should have the decency—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Human Rights Act, but he has no justification for dilating upon the subject. It is legitimate for hon. Members to consider the question of compatibility, but the hon. Gentleman gets into difficulty when he strays into a general debate about the merits or demerits of the Human Rights Act. I know that he will want to resist any temptation to do so.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I certainly do, Mr. Bercow, and I thank you for your advice—I think I have made my point.

I am also concerned about something said earlier by the hon. Member for Reading, West. I cannot remember if he said that he voted against it or not, but he felt that the Government tried to bulldoze through 90 days because they were afraid of looking weak. There is concern in the minds of some people that the Government are trying to position themselves in a political fashion in relation to this issue. That seems to have been backed up by the comments of some of their own spin doctors speaking off the record to the press who, as I said earlier, referred to Dave—presumably meaning the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—positioning himself badly on the issue. That makes the issue seem like a game where we have to take up positions, rather than a matter of national security.

My slight cynicism is further added to by the timing of this. I cannot help wondering whether it is entirely coincidental that the legislation began and continues its passage while an important criminal trial is taking place. Before anyone looks at me in shock and horror that the Government might use the media in such a fashion, I remind hon. Members that it was only a few years ago, prior to the Queen’s speech in 2004, that a leak to the Daily Mail apparently from the security services mentioned a plot to hijack planes and fly them into Canary Wharf. Since then, nothing further has been heard about it. We do not know whether anyone was questioned about that leak or if it is in order for the security services to speak to the Daily Mail off the record in that fashion. Again, one was left with the feeling that the media were being used to whip up scare stories to allow the Government to propose draconian pieces of legislation. I fear that something like that might be happening now.

Russell Brown (Labour, Dumfries and Galloway)

The hon. Gentleman says that this is an issue of national security. Where does he believe that the great British public stand on this?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I suspect that the Government are trying to use stories in the media, some of which I believe to be false and which were never backed up—such as planes being hijacked and flown into Canary Wharf—and some of which are real in terms of people who have been convicted of terrorism charges. Because of ongoing court cases I shall simply say that. I believe that those stories are being deliberately used in an inappropriate fashion to give the Government an excuse to introduce legislation that will not help to resolve the problem, but will strip us all of our human rights.

Russell Brown (Labour, Dumfries and Galloway)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can remind me whether 7/7 and almost 21/7 happened.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

They did. I have just said that the Government have used hypothetical situations that did not happen and situations that did happen, such as the one referred to by the hon. Gentleman, to try to excuse legislation that will not solve the problem and will reduce our rights as individuals. Surely, the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that other pieces of legislation, to which I referred earlier, could do the job more effectively, if repealed.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I spoke warmly of him being a proper Tory in my earlier contribution. May I countenance some caution on his behalf? One of the dangers for someone occupying the lunatic fringes of any political party is that they believe any passing conspiracy theory. Some websites question whether 9/11 really happened. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the media clamour in support of the Government’s proposals is as a mouse compared to the roar that we had when The Sun was whipping up a fury to support 90 days? Should he not frame his comments in a context that is at least based in reality?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I am tempted to ask why the hon. Gentleman is so familiar with how it feels to be on the lunatic fringes of a political party.

Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)

I have studied the lunatic right in this country for nearly 30 years and have extensive files on the subject.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

It is probably as well that the Data Protection Act 1998 does not apply to MPs or I would be asking for my own entry on his database. In all truthfulness, I am well aware of the conspiracy theories. Like him, I get e-mails about them and I usually reply by saying, “If the conspiracy is that good, there is nothing that I can do about it anyway.” I find that quite effective. I used the example about the planes being hijacked because I have researched that fairly thoroughly. If the hon. Gentleman looks it up, he will see that there is plenty about it and about how there is not much basis to such theories. In all honesty, I suggest that he looks at that.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Member for Newark will like this. Let us nail once and for all this canard that the timing is to do with whatever is going on in the courts. Very happily, we have had significant terrorism court cases in the past six months, including those arising from operations Crevice and Rhyme. Very, very happily, Peter Clarke, the outgoing Deputy Assistant Commissioner, said that on any given day of the week for the next 18 months, there will also be significant terrorism trials going on. It is utterly ridiculous and nonsense to suggest that the timing of the Bill is allied to the overt trial of the alleged airline plot.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I know the Minister to be an honourable man, and I am certain that he believes that. It may well be that he is right on this occasion. Nevertheless, when people are rounded up on terrorist offences, the BBC and ITV are often tipped off in advance so that they can film the raids taking place.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Name one.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

If the police are to conduct terrorist raids, they should not be done in the full glare of media publicity, and I believe that that has happened. On many occasions, people have been rounded up and released afterwards and that has not received anything like the same level of press attention as the original raids.

I think that I have come to the end of my comments. I will finish as I started by saying that I am committed to law and order. I am completely in favour of enabling the courts to send people to prison for very long periods of time, and I would like to see it happening more often than it currently does. However, people need to be charged and found guilty of an offence before they are locked up. Since other hon. Members have mentioned the 17th century, the most significant act of near terrorism in that period is the one that nearly took place here in 1605, which was used as an excuse by some in Government, though not by King James, to clamp down and oppress Roman Catholics. I think, and I hope, that we have learned the lessons from that. We should not allow ourselves to be scared, or to allow the Executive to take away fundamental liberties because of perceived fears about terrorism that may or may not be grounded in reality. There is plenty that we can do to tackle terrorism without stripping every member of the British public of a right that they have enjoyed for centuries.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

We often talk about the first duties of Government. In this case, that is a suitable debate along with a debate on how we find the balance between defending freedoms and defending life and limb. In the defence of freedom, one can lose life and limb. When we defend life and limb, we worry about the defence of freedom. I think about how we might debate that today and about how we got involved in the issue in West Yorkshire, how the police force got involved and how it became a very real part of our lives, because some members of our community, who seemed to us to be just ordinary people, became involved in the type of activity that we are discussing.

When some people were arrested, everybody said, “They seemed quite ordinary folk.” Nobody thought that anything peculiar was happening. It was quite a shock when we discovered that some members of our community, who seemed to be teachers and ordinary people going about their business, were actually plotting to blow people up. Where was the line drawn for them? What was freedom for them or freedom for us not to be blown up? Where do we draw the line between freedom to go about our ordinary business and not be blown up and freedom not to be imprisoned? That is a very difficult line to draw.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West gave an extremely good speech. I might say, “Well, it was such a good speech, why should I bother speaking at all?” However, I do differ from him on one or two counts and I will come on to those. My own community, where I live, was intrinsically drawn into this. We were not necessarily the people who were blown up, but members of our community got engaged in this activity, and we had a lot of debate in the community about how it was that people who lived with us got so engaged in it.

Before we knew that people were about to be arrested, we gathered together and started to discuss how that had happened. We did not know at that point that people were about to be arrested, and I had not talked to police officers. However, we started to have discussions. The Muslim community was very distressed, and of course we must remember that it is not only members of one community who become victims; members of every community are victims of atrocities. We must not imagine that Muslims were not victims of atrocities or may not be victims of atrocities in future. They became quite engaged in a debate about how it could be that people wanted to blow one another up. Their view, and mine, too, at that time—my view has not altered much—was very much about the ethos of cults. It is one that perhaps is not right for this measure, but Government ought to think about it. People have started to think about why people blow one another up.

I do not think that this issue should be dealt with through the judicial process. Members have got drawn into the issue and have started to try to use the criminal process and the judicial process, and have muddled that up with an issue that ought to be about the civil process and what happens in our community. I think that it would be a mistake to muddle those two things up, because in the communities people are already talking about how they can engage with one another and what they can do to develop their communities, dealing with their education processes and social structures. I do not think that they would want to deal with the judicial process in this way, as if that somehow would help them to develop social constructs that would engage them and help them not to be the sort of people who want to blow others up. The conflation of those arguments, which I have heard today, is not helpful.

The idea that this measure would somehow help people in future to see it as an entry point for terrorism is simply wrong. I do not think that it has any part in that process. We have to remember that atrocities existed for a long time before this, and that is where I differ from my hon. Friend. They existed before Iraq and before lots of wars before that, too. Atrocities will continue while people have arguments with us about lots of things and they will find arguments to have about lots of other things in future, whatever we do about this schedule.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I accept that this schedule is not going to drive al-Qaeda, but does the hon. Lady not accept that it could be used as a propaganda tool by the people who recruit for al-Qaeda, which wants a caliphate across the whole western world, just as the IRA wanted a united Ireland. Both groups have been happy to use examples of things that they thought were wrong, to whip up hatred among supporters and turn them into terrorists, and that is what this could do.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Of course, if we do absolutely nothing that, too, could look like a kind of weakness. A weak Government who do nothing in the face of atrocity, and all kinds of things, can be used as propaganda tools. Absolutely anything could be construed or misconstrued in any way. Such a mind, which we cannot understand because we are not inside it, could twist anything into any form that it chose. It is not our job to put ourselves in the mind of somebody who cannot see things in the way that we see them. Our job is to try to do our best to protect our citizens in the way that we see best, to try to find the balance that we are tasked with, using the evidence before us.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Surely, it is exactly our job to put ourselves in the minds of the enemy? I think that it is called counter-terrorism.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I see that as the job of the agents we employ. My job as a legislator is to use the evidence given to me to decide how best to protect people. As far as counter-terrorism goes, that is not my job because I am not that specialist; I am a legislator and I am legislating as best I can with the evidence before me. Counter-intelligence is for those agents; I am not an agent in the field—I am not doing that job. I am trying to do the job set before me, which is to try to decide, with all the evidence that I have been given, whether in the case of an atrocity the legislation would be useful to those people whom we have tasked to do the counter-terrorism job for us. I suggest that it would.

We have been debating whether in the event of an atrocity or if we think an atrocity might happen, whether in 28 days we have still not got all the evidence but we think that given a little longer we might, we should ask for a little more time. In those circumstances, would we regret not asking for more time? It is a precaution that we might need to take, and I would be prepared in a year’s time, having not used the extra time, to eat humble pie and say, “I am glad we never used it, I am glad that that circumstance never arose”, either because no such atrocity took place or because every single case that came before was us was settled in 14 days. I would be happy to say, “Great, everything went smoothly”, but I am also happy, having heard the evidence, that this measure is just one of the many things in our toolkit that we should have.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, as I hope she knows. Surely, our job as legislators is to be able to see beyond the narrow confines of those problems that are presented to us through evidence, the media or whatever, to base our understanding upon experience? When she reaches my mature age, she will be able to look back down those years and say, “We have made mistakes in the past. We have done things well in the past. Base it on evidence”. Surely our job—I agree that we are not security agents—is to use our judgment, balance our experience and perhaps even use our native wit, to make sure that the legislation that she and I endeavour to pass or oppose is good legislation, and not flawed.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

That is sound knowledge, and I will accept the hon. Gentleman’s flattery whenever I can. That, of course, is why the legislation is time limited. It will not run not ad infinitum; it includes lots of checks and balances. It is good that it will not go on for ever. We have introduced legislation, because we think it necessary at the moment, but it is not here for all time. It is here while we think that we need it. The House need not fear that it is going to go on for ever, or that we might have the legislation on the books ad infinitum. The House need not accept it for ever. However, for the time being, while we fear that there may be a threat, it is here for us to use. That is all that it is. It is just one of a panoply of measures that are available.

I would be the first to wave a flag and say, “Isn’t it great if, in a year’s time, we can look back and the hon. Gentleman and all the hon. Members here can say to me, ‘Do you know you were wrong? We didn’t need to use it once’.” I would be satisfied with that. However, should one occasion arise on which we needed the legislation and it was not there, I would prefer not to have to come to Parliament in the heat of the moment. That would be the worst possible time. When we took evidence, we discussed what it would be like when we had reached the 27th day.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am listening to the hon. Lady with care, and I appreciate the sincerity of her remarks. The application of the precautionary principle to which she adheres could be used to justify giving and extending latitude and powers in the law to an infinite degree. We are not here to say, “I hope that in a year’s time I can turn round and say that none of this was needed”. We are here to protect people’s liberties, and we do not do so simply by surrendering to the notion that we should provide extensive powers because they might be required, particularly when the overwhelming weight of the evidence, from those who have to use the powers to prosecute and bring people to justice, is that these laws are not needed.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Forgive me for hoping that they are not needed, in spite of hearing the evidence. This morning, the hon. and learned Gentleman made some arguments that I, too, was disappointed that we had not heard evidence about the kind of atrocities that people believed were being plotted against us. We know that there are plots against us, but I hope that none of those plots comes to fruition. I hope that they are all foiled, and that the agents we employ on our behalf are always successful. The agents plotting against us have to be successful only once; we have to be successful all the time in foiling the plots. I hope that our police forces and our security services are always successful but, as good as they are, they may sometimes fail.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I cannot fail to come back to the argument that the hon. Lady is making, which has also been made by some of her hon. Friends, too. The argument seems to be that the necessity of extending pre-charge detention beyond 28 days is in some ways a preventive measure. The impression that I get from the way in which she has argued that case is that that will enable plots to be foiled. She should listen to what the Director of Public Prosecutions said. Any period of detention, whether 28 days or 42 days—leaving aside the notion of taking detention without trial on a Northern Ireland model—is not preventive; it is about investigating the offence that has been brought against that individual. There is a danger of weaving those two concepts together, and that is why the DPP was so emphatic that he did not need the power. There was nothing, in his view, that would not have emerged by day 27, if not a long time before, that might emerge by day 42, which would require the detention of the individual.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

I, too, heard all of the DPP’s evidence, including that he would use such measures if they were available to him, but I have also heard evidence from ACPO, and my local police force. I was given examples of circumstances in which an investigation might go on longer. I admit that they were hypothetical because such circumstances did not arise in that particular investigation, but they included a plot that was international, with evidence strewn all over the world. Travel is so easy these days that not only might the persons being investigated come from many different countries, but plots could be taking place throughout the world. The evidence might be encrypted, but that is not the only problem. People might be associating with each other throughout the world or being trained all over the place. It is difficult to gather the sheer quantity of evidence from many places. The police could envisage circumstances in which it was difficult to gather the evidence in such a time.

When I first discussed the matter with the police, they suggested that a reasonable time was 60 days, but now they would be satisfied with 42 days. Opposition Members do not accept 42 or 60 days, but I would be satisfied with 42 days on the basis that it is better than 28 days. If one of the plots described to me by the police was happening, we might regret not having given them the scope to investigate it. We were given evidence that such plots were being investigated and had so far been foiled, but we should err on the side of caution. I hope that we do not ever regret matters and have to return to the House saying that we failed.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

In reality, would there not have to be reasonable evidence before someone could be arrested in the first place, and could not the evidence be worked through in 28 days? People will not be taken off the streets at random. There would have to be good reasons for doing so. We are arguing whether 28 days is enough time to look at the evidence, and surely it must be.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

There has to be reasonable suspicion, but suspicion is different from evidence. Having sufficient evidence—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman is arguing from a sedentary position and I cannot hear what he is saying. We should err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting the lives of our constituents. The difference between that and the hon. Gentleman’s argument about the thin end of the wedge is that we are discussing the protection of large numbers of lives, which places us under an onerous duty to be careful. Sufficient safeguards are in place. We must exercise caution not only in the way set out in the Bill, but by setting out time limits in the clause so that we can exercise caution with our constituents’ lives.

Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)

I do not come to the matter from the point of view of civil liberties. I agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley that the first duty of the Government is to protect their people. I would happily support 42 days if, first, I was not terrified of the Whips, secondly, I thought that it was useful and necessary and, finally, I did not think that it would undermine our proposition. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that it is a whole new problem when people are prepared to commit world-changing acts that would result in gigantic numbers of casualties, and when terrorists would do such things if they could match their capability with their motivation.

In 2003, I was a television reporter. I shall never forget being up on the Iranian border at the beginning of the war, and seeing people going through the pockets in the clothes on the bodies of Ansar al-Islam jihadists. The travel documents from several of those people showed that they were from all over the middle east, the Maghreb countries and so on, and they had visa and entry and exit stamps from European Union countries as well as the United States. I do not know whether the staggering stories that DNA samples taken off Afghan shepherds matched the stuff found in semis in the north of England are true, but the threat is obviously real. However, my fear is that the legislation is political posturing by the Government—it is not unheard of.

Mainly, witnesses to the Committee owed their jobs to the Government or had their credibility undermined by people on the other side. The Government could hardly have afforded not to have the Attorney-General—the guy who would have to steer prosecutions—but he for some reason does not think that the measure is necessary. Many Labour Back Benchers—by no means all—do not seem to agree with him. The Committee will not hear from others who would have different things to say on the matter.

I shall not forget that, after the vote for 90 days, a senior police officer who had been with the commissioner that afternoon, came here for a drink on the Terrace. He had previously been giving me the line that 90 days was critical and so on, but when I asked him what he thought, he said, “It doesn’t really matter, it’s just politics”. I shall also not forget a rather mercurial answerphone message when I called up someone vaguely of my acquaintance from a long time ago who is now senior in the Security Service. I asked him for advice and what he thought about the issue, and he said, “It would be wrong for me to express a view, but one must balance civil liberties and the remote chance that it might be useful, and whether or not it is actually needed”. That was a surprising response—it was hardly a ringing endorsement.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Just before the hon. Gentleman goes on to tell us about other mates he has rung up whose name and position he is unable to tell us, let me go back. It is not fair, in any way, shape or form, to impugn the professional judgment of our witnesses, whether Commissioner Blair, Commander Bob Quick or, indeed, the DPP. Let us set the line straight and say that. Everyone who came to us—I even include Lord Dear—was sincere in their view and was appropriate to their profession. None owed their jobs to the Government, and none were there to make the position clear on behalf of the Government. What the hon. Gentleman said was not fair to any of our witnesses.

Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)

We can both give way on that point, and I shall continue to cite other voices. The people will remain unnamed, but probably for good reasons, I find myself—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

We don’t know them because we don’t know the names.

Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)

I am hardly going to give them, am I? I found myself recently with what I think are called agent handlers. I asked them what they thought about the 90 days. One said, “I don’t really know, just don’t make it harder for us”. When I add that to the fact that the police have never come up against the need for more than 28 days, I see 42 days as posturing and as a political red herring, especially in the context of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Rather than wasting our time and capital on the issue, we ought to take a long, hard look at the drivers of radicalisation—multiculturalism, poverty alleviation and our foreign policy—and try to regain some of the international good will that we have lost. We should also introduce hard measures to isolate and eradicate those who threaten us, rather than simply trying to look tough.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

I did not mean to speak to the schedule, but I was prompted by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. I agree with my hon. Friend on one thing. Someone asked whether this was really about making the Government look tough on terrorism. I must say that I have no great objection to the Government looking tough on terrorism, but what I certainly want is for them to be tough on terrorism.

I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport when she said that she was sure that everyone in the room wanted consensus. I do not believe that that is true any more. I have listened to this debate since before Second Reading, and I think that people have pretty much come with their minds made up, for a number of reasons. There is a consensus, but it is not a consensus between the Government and the Opposition. It is a consensus among the Liberals, the Tories, Liberty and a number of groups.

The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has two things in his favour. He has long campaigned for civil liberties and has brought up issues such as intercept evidence in other Committees. He has a history of that, but my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West hit the nail on the head when he said that the hon. and learned Gentleman wore the issue of the number of days as a badge of honour. It is the issue on which he managed to turn over the Government, and there is no way he will give way on his past victory—his baby. I am fairly certain that that is one of his reasons. The other thing in his favour is that he is a lawyer. That excuses people from all sorts of strange things when it comes to human rights and the law.

I believe that many Opposition Members are having a hard time justifying—

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I have given my own side a hard time for being too soft on crime. The Conservative party says that it wants to lock up more people for longer, but that is not enough for me. I want even more people locked up for even longer, but I passionately believe that on this issue, we are absolutely right. I do not know to whom the hon. Gentleman is directing his comments.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

My mother always used to tell me to judge people by what they do, not what they say. If you had trooped through the Lobby with the Government on the 42 days, I would believe you when you say that you want to be tough on these things.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Chair takes no part in these proceedings other than to uphold good order and fair play.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

My apologies, Mr. Bercow. I am pretty much out of practice; I have not been in these circumstances for quite a long time.

The Liberals have a reasonable excuse as well. They vote against everything—everything that has anything to do with security, law and order. In every Committee that I was on, they voted against everything to do with ASBOs. They voted against community support officers. They have a great record. Then they go back to their constituencies and swear that they did not.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

One of the most encouraging words that has been used in this Committee is “consensus”. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give us less of the party politics and more consensus.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

I am trying to demonstrate that the real consensus is built around just that—party politics. That is the reason why 90 days and 42 days are so set in people’s minds. It is an issue on which people feel that they have got the Government in a corner from which they cannot back out— [ Interruption. ] May I just finish my point? Then I will let others come in. What is happening is that people smell blood. They sense that the Government are in a difficult situation. Mark my words, there is no chance of consensus on any number of days, for that reason. The very reason why there are no amendments today is that the Opposition are saving up their amendments and their ammunition for Report, when they feel that they will have the most devastating impact.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The hon. Gentleman says that he is out of practice. That is because he was a distinguished Government Whip. He talks about consensus, but he will be aware from The Sunday Times and from his time as a Whip that 50 of his colleagues voted against 90 days, and another 40 of his colleagues have been identified as causes of concern in terms of whether they will support the Government’s 42 days. He ought carefully to re-examine where the balance or consensus lies, because I cannot believe that 90 of his colleagues are seeking to do his own party damage.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

I do not suppose that they are, but given my experience as a Whip, I recognise where many of the arguments come from. When people used to tell me how terrible it was that 30, 40 or 50 Members were voting against the Government, I used to point out that that meant that 300, or whatever the exact figure was, were voting for the Government—still a majority of Labour MPs.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

I can see that I am managing to destroy—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. Before the hon. and learned Gentleman intervenes, I say to hon. Members that the debate should be about the merits of the Bill and its various clauses and amendments. Occasional reference to motives is to be expected, but the debate should not be about the motives of this or that individual, or the mechanics whereby a majority is cobbled together. I had reason to make that point to the hon. Member for Reigate on a previous occasion. I hope that it will not be necessary to repeat the point continually.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I shall be mindful of your sensible remarks, Mr. Bercow.

The hon. Gentleman says that the motive of Conservative Members is to gain party-political advantage. I am prepared to acknowledge the sincerity of hon. Members proposing the 42 days, but never in a month of Sundays did I imagine, after the Government’s defeat on 90 days, that they would reopen the debate on an extension to 42 days. Last summer, when they did just that, my first instinct was to tell privately as many Government Ministers as I could that I thought that they were making a mistake. The last thing that I, and most of my colleagues, I suspect, wanted was this issue to be reopened. It has remained a subject of complete mystification to me why the Government are proceeding in this fashion, particularly given that there does not seem to be a huge party-political advantage in this place in doing so. For that reason alone, I urge the hon. Gentleman to tell his Ministers to think again.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his speech, I want to make one other quick point. I understand the strength of feeling on this subject, but interventions are becoming increasingly prolix. Frankly, that needs to stop. Interventions must be much shorter.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

Thank you, Mr. Bercow. I suspect that I would have spent less time on party politics, but I have had to answer the questions put to me.

I shall address some of the core points about the Bill. Certainly in the Select Committee, I am fairly certain that there was consensus. Somebody said that there would be exceptional circumstances, and that in those circumstances we would have to do something—I think that that was the statement. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself acknowledged that in such exceptional circumstances, he would be willing to consider legislation. Therefore, I think that there was an acceptance that in exceptional circumstances there might be reason to do something. I notice that he finishes all his remarks by saying, “We have no evidence at present.” Having been a Whip and very cynical, I suspect that he is keeping his get-out, if it is decided in the end that it may be necessary to do something.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am a pragmatic man, and I also try to think. If somebody comes up with clear evidence compelling me to change my view on something, I am perfectly prepared to change it. However, the fact is that there has never been any evidence to justify going beyond 28 days. There is no evidence now to support moving to 42 days, just as there was no evidence two years ago for moving to 90 days.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

I notice that that time the hon. and learned Gentleman did not say “at present”, but I think that he said, “today” or a similar sort of thing.

I am simply saying that the Government considered what was said in the Select Committee about the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. People said, “That is a mechanism that can actually be used to do this”, but the examination by the Select Committee showed the faults and problems with doing that. Therefore, it was necessary to return with something else. What we have at the moment is a genuine attempt by the Government to offer something to Parliament that is along those lines. It gives Parliament the chance to veto anything that happens.

It seems to me that there is a big difference between what is happening now and the arguments that were put for 90 days, 28 days and 14 days. The difference is in the safeguards that have been built in. I have just looked at the notes and found the diagram that explains how the system will be put into action. That system was not there before. First, the Director of Public Prosecutions and a senior chief constable or commissioner of the Metropolitan police must decide that they want to do something. The Director of Public Prosecutions is quoted extensively as somebody who does not think that this is necessary. Is it not reassuring that he is one of the people who has to want to do it in the first place?

The likelihood of the power being used cannot be equated with internment in Northern Ireland, where prisons were built to put people away. I think that it will be used sparingly and in exceptional operational circumstances. That is how it is designed. It is supposed to be enacted under compelling operational circumstances. We are talking about something completely different. Mark my words: although I say that the Director of Public Prosecutions may not want to bring in the power, somebody else who will not want to is the Home Secretary. I can accept the argument that the Metropolitan police commissioner or a senior police officer might think that this is a great idea that gives them a bit of extra leeway, some extra strength or an additional tool. However, the Home Secretary will be faced with having to report to Parliament and not only that, but having to come back seven days later and have a vote in Parliament.

We can see how controversial this legislation is. We can see how difficult it is for people to agree on it. We can see how difficult it is for the Home Secretary to put across the argument. Do we think that she will want to do that over and over and over again? If it happens once, I bet that it will be a while before it happens a second time. Perhaps people have no faith in Parliament, but I cannot see that this is something that will be nodded through. It will engender a great debate in Parliament. Any Home Secretary who puts this into practice will say to themselves that there have to be exceptional circumstances.

I accept what has been said about whether the power should be under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The fact that the power has been used will not be kept secret because an emergency has not been declared. However, would it not be a propaganda coup for al-Qaeda or whoever the terrorists are if we keep declaring states of emergency in this country? The very thing that terrorists work on is the idea that they disrupt our normal life and stop us going about our business in a normal way. When people stop using the tube, it is a victory for the terrorists. When Londoners went about their business as they had always done and when things returned to normal in Barcelona, the terrorists were losing. What a coup it would be for them if we kept declaring emergencies every time we wanted to examine some extra evidence.

I rose partly because of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. However, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield made my blood boil a little when he talked about not doing this because it would create martyrs. He described men who are evil, are already persuaded that they should be killing people and are already killing people. He said, “Let’s not give them a reason to build on that. Let’s not give them the propaganda.” I have to say that I cannot believe that a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman is taking that view. In the same way, I find it difficult to hear the hon. Member for Monmouth taking that view. Also, the hon. Member for Gravesham went through a great list of things we should do. Then his last line was something like, “Well, we will do some tough things as well.” The things we do, we should be doing because they are right.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the hon. Gentleman just wrestle with this? When an individual is arrested under those powers and detained for up to 42 days, but is then not charged and cannot be deemed to be guilty of any offence, there is going to be immense anger in the host community.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

That might be the situation, but we might find the same situation after 28 days. Those 14 days are not going to be the convincing thing. Let me say that what we have now is people blowing themselves up, people who are quite happy to kill other people, themselves and members of their family. Do not tell me—I honestly cannot believe—that any legislation going through the House to make 28 days 42 days is going to make any difference to those people whatsoever. I think that Winston Churchill would be turning in his grave to hear someone talking in these terms—“We are not going to upset them by doing this.” Neville Chamberlain might have risen from his grave in those circumstances.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am most grateful to my Nottinghamshire colleague for allowing me in. I absolutely take his point—he is spot on. We have to save lives. We have to stop people being killed. However, we also have to look to the future. We have to make sure that the legislation that we pass now does not exacerbate a problem that just might be containable, that we do not make the mistakes that we have made so many times in the past and give our enemies further reason to continue their fight and their evil against us.

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely, but I do not think that we would get such a situation by demonstrating weakness, by appeasing people. That does not help. I have a very big Muslim population. I bet that I have a bigger Muslim population than anyone in this room. Nottingham, East—check it out and see. What happens when I go and talk to them and when they get to know the facts? It is not a straight 90 days to 42 days—there are all those judicial and parliamentary safeguards and the thing is very different to how it started off. That is not being portrayed to people. When they know about that, do they want the same protections that I want? Do the Muslim population want the same protections as the rest of the population? The reality is, yes, they do. They might have the odd imam stirring something up in the mosque on a Friday, but get those people on their own, as individuals or in small groups, and we would not find them anxious to be insecure any more than the rest of us want to be insecure.

Intercept evidence, post-charge questioning, all are great. People put them forward as to why we should not go to the 42 days. I agree with them on that. I suspect that I am very big on the idea. I want to give the police and security services as many of the tools that are necessary to beat the terrorists as we can, but at the same time ensure that we have safeguards—I pointed out the safeguards in the legislation—to protect individuals’ liberty.

Even if we pass the post-charge legislation and all the other bits and pieces in the Bill that people have welcomed—all the stuff about freezing assets and so on—it does not mean that we should not have an extra safeguard of having something in reserve if it is needed. We should coolly and calmly make the decision now on how to deal with such a situation.

When Commissioner Blair spoke to us, he said that he would hate to have to come back and ask for this power after an atrocity. I feel exactly the same. I would hate to be the person opposing the measure if, as a result, someone died.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The hon. Gentleman used the word “consensus” on more than one occasion. I would like to make one point before we begin. I do not oppose 42 days on any party principle.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I suppose that I should bring my remarks to a conclusion, having already uttered about five words.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, who made an interesting contribution and considered that some of us on these Benches opposed the extension to 42 days simply on party lines. That is not where I am coming from. I do not believe that it is necessary, and I shall explain why.

Having had some 30 years’ practice in the criminal courts, I have a high regard for the criminal justice system in England and Wales. That is because it works. It has developed over centuries past. The rules are there for a purpose, and they are amended for a purpose when necessary. By and large, our system of justice is as good as anybody’s. I say that with a certain pride, having been involved as both a solicitor and a barrister. I am not here to make any cheap points.

I would not seek to impugn the sincerity of anybody on the Committee or in the House on this most difficult of subjects. It is difficult because none of us in the Committee, elsewhere in the House or at large would ever want to see an atrocity perpetrated that could have been avoided or prevented. That is absolutely without doubt, and I know that we are at one on that. There is consensus at least on that matter.

I say with respect to the Minister that he has attempted over months past to build up a consensus. His office has been open to Opposition Members, and there are some things in the Bill that are very helpful and will be supported with certain safeguards, but I am afraid that the two sides of the Committee, and I believe the two sides of the House, will remain at issue on this aspect of it.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, East, referred earlier to the consensus that he hoped to see built up. It is therefore quite surprising that in the past two years, a consensus did build up about a 28-day limit. Many of us who were vehemently opposed to 90 days were eventually, pragmatically, persuaded to fall in line on 28 days. Now, two years later, that consensus has sadly disappeared. One must ask whether there is now a compelling and urgent reason to revisit that decision of the whole House, which, as I have said, was arrived at by consensus. Sadly, I do not think that the case has been made at all. I say that with respect to the Minister and to the Home Secretary. In all the discussions that we have had in the past six or eight months, we have not seen any evidence to justify the move, let alone compelling and urgent evidence.

Several people have been quoted by Opposition and Labour Members during this interesting debate, and several committees, non-governmental organisations and so on have been referred to. I shall avoid all that, as it can be taken as read. However, it is quite telling that both the Home Secretary and Sir Ian Blair tell us that there has not been a case in which the full 28 days has been necessary. I have no desire to reel out all the quotations—they are on the record.

I say this, too, with respect: the hon. Member for Colne Valley made the point that we must not in any way make a mistake with this, and that we must avoid any calamity. All that is agreed. What interests me is that there is some kind of presumption among some people in the Committee—I do not mean to be rude about this—that if a person is arrested, they are therefore guilty. That seems to be the tenor of what is being said.

I respectfully ask the hon. Lady, and others, to think about a perfectly innocent person who is brought in, albeit on a reasonable suspicion. Earlier, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the psychological problems that often occur during a lengthy period of detention when questioning is going on. I have seen innocent people who, having spent only three or four days in police cells, come out with a problem or two that will remain with them for a very long time, if not for ever. I am not a softy, and I do not want to see anybody perpetrate a horrible incident on any of our constituents—let me say that again.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

It is not just about someone coming out with a problem or two, there is also the risk that they come out having made either false confessions or false allegations as a result of the pressure of the detention.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That is absolutely correct. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that from his own experience—I am sure that all of us lawyers have been involved in similar matters—looking at cases where confessions have been brought forward due to the strain of isolation and so on, which can be severe.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Is this not a matter of risk? There is a risk that the person detained could be innocent, but there is also the risk that they are not innocent. If they are not detained, they could carry on with the plot that we are trying to avoid.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That is right, but I do not see how extending the period of detention to 42 days will deal with that particular problem. In any event, the person will eventually have to be charged or released. We might conceivably charge a person who is innocent, or release somebody who is not. I do not see where the logic of that intervention takes us.

I mentioned briefly that we have a body of rules that we abide by in the legal system in England and Wales. I will not go through the comparatives about common law, and where people are, because all of that is on the record. Suffice it to say that what is being sought is a hugely long period of time.

The word “pragmatism” has been used once or twice today. I say to the Minister that, if evidence was brought forward, I for one would most definitely, seriously and urgently consider it. If the case were persuasive, I would have to reconsider what I am saying, and forget about any civil liberties arguments that I might have. For the public good we would have to fall in line and accept that an extension is required. However, nowhere has any member of the Government put forward a persuasive or compelling case for this serious change in the law.

The Law Society has made its feelings known, and I am not going to quote from it. It relies heavily on what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said—that the pre-charge detention period is sought on a precautionary basis, and that there is no justification for it. Our best Government evidence suggests that perhaps in the future, perhaps quite soon, we might require more than 28 days for an inquiry to be conducted fully. That is interesting because the hon. Member for Reading, West made several interventions and a speech this morning on that particular aspect. Two years have elapsed since the 28-day extension became possible, and in those two years a lot of work has been going on, a lot of arrests have been made, but not once has the 28-day period been reached—[Interruption.]I think that 27 days is the longest.

If there were compelling evidence that the police were being stymied, I am sure that most of us would say that we have no argument with the measure.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

The hon. Gentleman speaks a language that we all understand, of wanting—in fact, needing—to see compelling evidence. Would he accept a statement that is made in a lot of the literature on terrorism, that radicalisation has no visible progression? That makes it very difficult for us to see where it is, how it is developing and where it will act. Does he acknowledge that that is a problem and one that this Bill is attempting to accommodate?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

With respect, I am not sure how the hon. Lady equates holding somebody for 42 days with dealing with radicalism. It seems to me that radicalism is a cultural and/or religious matter and that is something that we need to engage with. However, I do not believe that this Bill will offend our friends in the Muslim community, although other people may say that it might do so. I sincerely hope that it does not and I do not think that it will, so that is not part of my argument.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, from his own experience long ago, the Vagrancy Acts. He will remember how the stop-and-search powers were used in such a way, especially in London, as to cause immense rage, anger and dismay among the ethnic communities.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That is absolutely true; there is no doubt about that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right about that. However, my point was that I was not seeking to rely on the 42-day extension being, in a way, targeted against anyone or causing alarm among certain people. I might be wrong and the Muslim communitye might feel under threat by the existence of this particular debate. I hope not, but I do not know; I am no expert on that particular subject.

We are told that there are safeguards in the Bill and that there will be judicial supervision. We are also told that, when the reserve power is to be brought in, it will be referred to the House of Commons. The explanatory notes say that it would be referred if,

“there is operational need for it.”

It would be referred if,

“the Director of Public Prosecutions and a chief officer of police in England and Wales”,

were to say that there is an “operational need for it”, based on

“reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of one or more persons beyond the current maximum limit will be necessary”.

We would then bring in the reserve power, which in turn would be referred to the House of Commons.

I must ask what useful purpose will it serve to bring the reserve power to the House of Commons? I ask that because surely if this detention is at a very delicate stage, where some evidence has been gleaned—obviously it must be the case that some evidence has been gleaned—but other evidence is being looked at, how much will we in Parliament be told about the depth of the work that is going on? I suspect that we will be told very little indeed, in which case it is a waste of time to bring the reserve power to the House of Commons.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

To reinforce what the hon. Gentleman is saying, paragraph 41(5) of schedule 1 states:

“The statement must not include—

(a) the name of any person then detained under section 41, or

(b) any material that might prejudice the prosecution of any person.”

That makes it wholly plain that the House of Commons will be told virtually nothing.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That is my view and I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman supports it, because this particular safeguard does not add up to a row of beans. We are left with the judicial intervention, and I am sure that that would be quite honest and straightforward; I have no doubt about that. Senior circuit judges and other experts in these matters would be referred to. That is fine.

However, I find that this particular matter of the Executive order coming to us to consider whether to vote it through on no evidence at all seems to be a waste of parliamentary time. More importantly, it is a safeguard that, in effect, means very little indeed.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about Parliament acting as a sort of grand jury, but not in possession of the facts of the case. I felt that various contributions from the Government Benches reflected confusion about the circumstances, implied by this Bill, in which the investigating authorities run into difficulties with a specific investigation and require additional time, and the post-apocalyptic scenario of a state of emergency after a massive incident, in which everybody would accept the House’s authority being sought for further Executive action. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

In the latter case, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 would no doubt come into play. [ Interruption. ] It might not, apparently: in a cataclysmic event, it would not come into play. One wonders what it is there for then. I was a member of the Committee on that Bill, too—for my sins.

My concern is not to score cheap points or to undermine anybody’s sincerity; it is not at all to do with that. I am desperately worried about the all-important balance between the safety of the individual and the inalienable rights that we as citizens all enjoy. They have evolved through common law and statute over many years, and we should not be deprived of them for no good reason. If the evidence were produced, again, I would not argue this case. However, the evidence does not exist, the case has not been made and the legislation is not at all proportionate.

I finish by referring right hon. and hon. Members to the conclusions of the House of Lords Joint Committee in its report on the subject. It concluded:

We can find no clear evidence that it is likely that at some point in the near future more than 28 days will be needed. In particular, this is not the view of the CPS who say they have been operating perfectly ‘comfortably’ within the current limit.

The alternatives to extension do enough to protect the public and are much more proportionate, especially the combination of the threshold test...post-charge questioning and making intercept admissible.

The proposed parliamentary mechanism creates a serious risk of prejudice”—

as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said—

“to the fair trial of suspects, because it involves parliamentary debate about the merits of extending the limit in relation to specific ongoing investigations.

The existing judicial safeguards for extending even up to 28 days are inadequate because they do not provide a full adversarial hearing or an opportunity to challenge the basis on which someone is being detained.”

This oversight by Parliament is an interesting constitutional departure. It flies in the face of the separation of powers and judicial independence, and it should be looked at with great concern. It would not amount to a great deal, however, because it would not mean much: we would be kept in the dark and expected to nod the thing through. With respect to the Minister, I, along with other friends and colleagues on the Opposition Benches feel strongly about the measure, and I hope that the Government will reconsider it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I cannot remember who I asked about this point earlier, but I think it was the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington—the birthday boy, as we call him. To pursue it, is the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy arguing—for argument’s sake, let us stay with the model—that parliamentary oversight for that “operational period” should be expunged and that we should find some other way for Parliament to oversee things, or is he minded to go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and at least have the vote or the discussion in Parliament at the seven to 10-day period rather than at the 30-day period? If the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is unsatisfied with the parliamentary oversight provisions in the Bill, in this little game that we are playing about the model being fine, on which I appreciate his comments, what would be the most appropriate role for Parliament in that context?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Unless the Minister says that full details will go before Parliament, the role of Parliament will be negligible in its effect and we will all be, in effect, fig leaves for something that is beyond our knowledge. We will not know exactly what is going on, and if we will not know that, how will we possibly be able to vote in all conscience one way or t’other in accordance with our duty to our constituents and to this place?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In lieu of what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said about paragraph 41(5) of schedule 1 and the explicit notion that individuals or cases cannot be referred to directly, that matter has been of concern in general, let alone in terms of parliamentary oversight given this model. I thought that everyone was fairly comfortable with where Sue Hemming got during the course of the alleged airline plot that is currently before the courts—I do not want to say too much about it—where she and Peter Clarke at the end of their deliberations could at least get into the public domain the number of individuals involved, the nature of the plot, the complexity, the when and why and all of the other elements that would be perfectly acceptable to know had that come before Parliament in that extant model before us. That would have given Parliament more than sufficient reason to deliberate on what it should be deliberating on, which is whether it agrees with the Home Secretary commencing the order for that model to be alive and no more.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The Minister has made a fulsome response to the question that I posed on what kind of evidence we would become aware of and has given us some interesting information that is worthy of further thought. However, there is always the other point that Parliament acts in a quasi-judicial role.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Absolutely not.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That usurps the role of the courts. We are legislators, the Minister is a member of the Executive and the courts are the judiciary, and we should not really mix those up.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

May I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman is saying by drawing to the his attention the fact that even if the House was to disapprove of the order, it will have been in place for 30 days, and if the initial detention started the end of the relevant period, as one suspects it would, the detained person is likely to be in custody for at least 42 days in any event, even if the order is disapproved?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that, because he makes an important point. In conclusion, I believe that this part of the Bill is flawed. I have not touched upon some of the opinions of various informed people on whether it is compliant with human rights, but I will not go down that road just now. I know that the Government have their own opinion, and it is a moot point in any event. Whenever we legislate, we should do so in a proportionate way, and I do not think that this part of the Bill is proportionate in any way.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. Although I disagree with many of the things that he said, he put his case in a reasoned and proportionate way. I think that he and others have demonstrated that there is a lawyer’s perspective on the matter and a public perspective. That does not mean that there are not members of the public who support the lawyer’s position on this. Similarly, some lawyers support the public position and the position that the Government have on it. However, there seems to be a distinct perspective that is dependent on either general interest or professional training.

I will say at the outset, as might become obvious from some of the things that I say, that I am not a lawyer: I would not pretend that I know my habeas corpus from my Magna Carta, but I at least feel that I have a finger on the public pulse in this regard. Just looking at it, we have before us a proposal to extend the period of pre-charge detention from 28 days to 42 days, but there has to be a recommendation from the DPP before that can take place. We can argue about some of the things that he said, but I think that there is general agreement that he is less than enthusiastic about the provision, and the public would reasonably expect him to be, shall we say, a difficult man to convince to take a particular case further.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

While what the hon. Gentleman is saying is clearly right of the existing DPP, he should bear in mind that directors serve for a relatively short period. We are therefore considering the position of directors for the foreseeable future.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. It is also correct to say that this legislation can be renewed annually. If there are concerns that there is not such an obstacle, Parliament will have an opportunity to deal with that through the normal legislative channels. Stage one is a difficult hurdle to get over. The next stage is for the case to be reviewed by a High Court judge after seven days. Again, given the strength of feeling that there seems to be within the judiciary, it seems reasonable to assume that a High Court judge would not let the process go further if a very strong case could not be made that it was necessary.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that what we are discussing will not be an inter-party hearing? Generally speaking, it will be a hearing at which only the Crown is represented.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

Forgive me if I do not understand the details of judicial procedure, but my understanding is that a High Court judge will determine whether a case should go any further.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I did not make myself clear. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. My point is that only one party will be represented. In this case that will be the prosecution. Generally speaking, the proposed defendant will not be present at the hearing.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Wrong.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am not wrong. There is a power to exclude the defendant and the defendant’s representative. I commend the all-party committee report on the matter.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

I will give way.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

There is such a power, but Sue Hemming, the chief prosecutor for counter-terrorism, made it very clear last week that there had been no ex-parte hearings, as provided for by the law. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer, but the practicalities and implementation of the law matter as much as what the law says. She was very clear not only that the other side were always represented, but that the power to have ex-parte hearings with the other side excluded had not been availed of at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not in any way, shape or form inadvertently mislead the Committee.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Even if that were not the case, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that somebody of High Court status, with some sort of expertise and training in this area, will not be a pushover when it comes to determining whether there should be further detention. I think that, by most people’s standards, a reasonable level of checks and balances is built in. Essentially, there is a judicial process, monitored and driven by the judiciary. I think that most people—the man in the street or the Clapham omnibus—would say that there is a reasonable balance between executive power and judicial independence.

In his opening statement, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield gave quite some detail of constitutional history and the importance of common law, habeas corpus, the rule of law and individual liberties, all of which I totally agree with. I think we can say that the fact that there is tension between the judiciary and the Government over this issue is itself a reflection of how democracy should work and is constructive. However, I think that the Government must have a different perspective from the judiciary, because they have a level of accountability that the judiciary do not. The fact remains that ACPO and Lord Carlile—the body and the individual most qualified to assess whether the powers are necessary—both agreed that they should. It ill becomes a Government representing the people to turn down those people’s evidence and advice, but by implementing it as they have, they have achieved a proportionate response that provides for a balance between protecting civil liberties and giving our legal system and security forces the backstop of a reserve power that they can operate in particularly difficult circumstances to protect the public. I think that the public reasonably expect that, given the range of checks and balances within the proposals.

At the end of the day, it is a matter of judgment. I judge it one way; others may judge it another. At different times, I have heard—perhaps “aspersions cast” is too strong a phrase—questions asked about the police’s genuine commitment to that. I can speak only for my own force, the West Midlands police force. I went on the parliamentary police liaison scheme for 25 days, and I made a point of asking them about it. It is fair to say that they were pretty unanimous in wanting the extra days, because of the complexity of the investigations. I will not repeat the description by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, who articulated it far more eloquently than I can.

Moving on to the issue of relations with the Muslim community, I, like other members, have a substantial Muslim community in my constituency. Muslims represent about 9 per cent. of my electorate. I would be circumspect about adopting a position on any of these issues if I felt that there was a strong community reaction, but as the hon. Member for Reading, West said, nobody has ever approached me about them.

There does seem to be some evidence that the Muslim community feels under pressure. However, I have heard different reasons at different times. The one most commonly quoted or prayed in aid is the Iraq war; the other is the stop and search powers. If I had to choose one, I would say that the stop and search powers have done more than anything else to make the Muslim community feel that it is under pressure, but to argue that we should not do something so demonstrably in the public interest and the interest of public safety because of perceived problems with a particular community is not the proper way to go about it. It underrates the sophistication and maturity of the Muslim community.

I shall not go into great detail, but three members of my local Muslim community were detained in Guantanamo Bay for two years. No collective anti-western reaction whatever arose from that. The community handled it in a mature and responsible manner. I believe that that is true of the great majority of Muslims in this country. They do not want terrorists in their midst, and most of them want to do everything in their power to co-operate with the police to end the scourge of terrorism.

Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of people feel most aggrieved to be associated with the fact that they could be terrorists, and that people, particularly newspapers, associate, or prefix the word “terrorists” with “Muslim”? They would feel a lot happier if we discussed terrorism without that prefix.

Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The easy and somewhat biased conflation of “Muslim” and “terrorism” has done us and the Muslim community no service. Certainly, it only plays into the hands of those individuals of extreme political complexion in some communities and undermines race relations within such areas.

If it is quoted too readily that we must not do something because it will offend a community or that we are in danger of crossing a line that provides those who want to commit such acts with a rationale for doing so, we would push the moral responsibility away from the terrorists. That is inappropriate. The fact remains that there is nothing in the legislation that should impinge the human rights of any law-abiding citizen, and there is no point in highlighting that it will only provide ammunition for those who wish to abuse others’ human rights.

I have never found a normal westernised Muslim looking at the period of pre-charge detention and saying, “That’s enough for me. If you go over that, I’m going to become a terrorist.” That is simply a complete negation of reality. Similarly, although I would not pretend knowingly to meet terrorists every day, I find it difficult to believe that somebody who detests western values such as democracy and the rule of law, will suddenly become a terrorist simply because we have extended pre-charge detention from 28 to 42 days. An awful lot of loose arguments are bandied around on the subject. Some of them are linked to the Muslim community, but many if not more are from other communities with a specific political viewpoint. My own experience of dealing with my own Muslim community tells me that such a situation is far from reality and unbelievable.

As I see it, from a public perspective, a real problem has been outlined by people with the expertise and understanding to do so. The Government are proposing legislation that is proportionate and that contains the right balance between individual liberties and the need for extra security. It has a fair degree—it is not overwhelming—of public support. Given that, ultimately, if—heaven forbid—there is a terrorist incident after somebody has been released, the Government would rightly be held responsible for not having the legislative framework to prevent it. The measure will go a long way to ensuring that that never happens, and it should therefore be supported.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. I understand what he says, but with respect I must disagree with most of his points, the reasons for which I hope to articulate clearly.

I disagree strongly with schedule 1, which I believe to be an assault on an essential liberty that not only is a human right, but which is an increasingly important tool in countering terrorism. The Minister will take issue with much of what I say, but I would like to make one or two things clear from the start. I shall draw on comparisons with my own experience of fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland and the flawed policy of internment in Ulster, although I realise that neither offers a precise parallel to anything going on today. To make it quite clear, I do not believe that anything in this legislation bears any resemblance to internment. Despite the parallels that I shall draw between what happened in Ulster and what is happening today in the fight against—principally—Islamic fundamentalism, I accept that they are very different, but none the less the parallels are instructive, so I shall try and bring them out.

After the comments from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, I shall concentrate on the power of perception and propaganda. If we forget about or neglect that, or do not anticipate it, we will pass an extremely important tool to our enemies. I am sure that Labour Members will say, “But please! We have a series of safeguards in place. We believe that 14 days is probably enough and that 28 days will have to be used occasionally, but we are searching for 42 days to be used in exceptional circumstances. And nothing that you say, oh Member for Newark, can possibly compare with internment.” They would be right—it cannot. However, our enemies will ensure that it does. That is the point. Again, the Minister and I have talked about this over the past few days and weeks. There is a fatal flaw in our understanding: if we fail to see what could be done with the theory—not the practice, because the reality does not matter—behind this proposal and allow the legislation to be suborned or canted and turned to the advantage of our enemies, I fear that we will be ignoring the lessons of history and doing ourselves a great disservice.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley made the point that we are in the business of protecting lives. Absolutely. I could not agree with her more. But we are also in the business of protecting future lives and of trying not to make mistakes that will endanger lives, not next week or year, but in 10 years. Again, I would like to draw on the lessons of the past to show us what dangers lie ahead. Let us consider the powers of propaganda. I joined my battalion in 1975 as a young officer—not during internment, but in its immediate aftermath. I expected to find the police, who were leading on the problem, and the Army, which was very much in a subordinate role, literally hammering at the bars of the cage saying, “We need more powers and time to deal with terrorists.” I expected them to take a fairly draconian approach towards dealing with that particular brand of terrorism. Not a bit of it. I am glad to say that the voices of reason were alive and well. They were based on the hideous mistakes of internment over the preceding two or three years. To generalise, their view was: we must be moderate and reasonable, and not allow our enemies to use the single most important tool that they have—not a bomb or bullet, but propaganda. Terror is not necessarily about killing, but about terrorising. Terror is about twisting the truth. If we can make people believe what we want them to believe rather than taking away their lives or their liberty, then we as terrorists will have achieved our aim. Let me give an example:

“Through the little streets of Belfast

In the dark of early dawn

British soldiers came marauding

Treating little homes with scorn.

Beating sons before their mothers

Dragging fathers from their beds”—

so it goes on. It finishes:

“As the blood flowed from their heads.”

The Minister can probably fill in the rest of the words.

Members of the Northern Ireland prison service are frequently referred to in republican propaganda as concentration camp guards. I did not see any such acts of violence when I was in Northern Ireland although I was not there during internment. I do not believe that those sorts of acts of violence went on. There were some difficult and hard arrests, and some arrests were resisted. It was said that sons were dragged from their mothers’ sides as their blood flowed from their heads and that perfectly ordinary policemen and prison screws were concentration camp guards. That is the power of propaganda and the twisted perception of our enemies.

What is the modern equivalent of that? Look at the way Abu Musab al-Zarqawi conducted his operations in Iraq. When a C-130 fell from the sky—as far as I know not brought down by enemy fire—the international media almost immediately had pictures not just of the aircraft on the ground but the fire of insurgents that had brought it down. We have talked about the way in which our enemies will tailor their propaganda. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second in command of al-Qaeda, said about our operations in Afghanistan:

“There will be no more Dr. Brydons”

I doubt whether many here could tell me what that is an allusion to. [Interruption.]

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am glad that a deep and sensible perception of military history exists in the east midlands. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right when he says that the one single survivor from Kabul in 1842 was Dr. Brydon. I will not go into any of the details. The point is that our enemies are knowledgeable, thoughtful and will use propaganda to the very best of their ability to unhinge our efforts and to defeat us—not with bombs and bullets, but with words.

I ask you, Mr. Bercow, to look carefully at the incident in Forest Gate, which took place nearly two years ago. I will not question the intelligence upon which those operations were based. However, when an individual who was being arrested was accidentally shot, the propaganda machine immediately went into overdrive. With those points in mind, I believe that if we extend our period of detention from 28 days to 42 days—I have to say that I had the gravest of reservations about the extension from 14 days to 28 days—three things will happen, all of them have been touched on already. First, vulnerable communities will be much more easily alienated than they have been so far. I understand those on the Government and Opposition Benches who said that the vast majority of people inside those vulnerable communities are reasonable, rational, sensible and thoughtful people. However, that is before our opponent’s propaganda machine has started to work properly. Again, I would urge everyone here to consider what happened to the Roman Catholic population in the 1970s. Again, it was slightly before my time, but the sight of British soldiers being greeted by Roman Catholics on the streets of Londonderry and Belfast in 1969, with cups of tea and plates of cakes, quickly changed after 1971. A vulnerable community was suborned—to use the modern phrase, radicalised—by careful and clever propagandists. It would be grossly unfair to say that we lost the sympathy of the Roman Catholic population, but none the less we lost a lot of sympathy from that particular vulnerable community.

Hard on the back of that comes recruiting. Once the sympathy of the community is lost, recruiting becomes that much simpler. Once recruiting gets into its stride, the job of the intelligence agencies becomes that much more difficult. The third point relates directly to that again—the crucial point that we found on the back of internment concerned the carefully established, nurtured and worked-up intelligence communities—the informers’ touts. Many of those individuals were alienated and lost until we managed to re-establish those communities from about 1975 or 1976 onwards. I would go so far as to say that, had we been able to maintain those lists of informers, we would have nailed that particular iteration of the IRA by about 1980. The long-lasting effect of internment was the killing of the gathering of intelligence and the implementation of aggressive use of intelligence on the back of it. That was purely and simply due to a failed and flawed piece of legislation, an Act of Parliament that worked so thoroughly badly, to the detriment of the security forces and to the aiding and abetting of our enemies.

In conclusion, we have had some compelling evidence from witnesses and other speakers that everything that I have predicted so far in my three points has yet to happen. A fair argument has been made that, if so draconian and dreadful, why did those things not happen when we went from seven to 14 days or from 14 to 28. I do not fully know the answer, but before the Minister challenges me on that I would say that our enemies are awaiting their opportunity. None of that will be as effective as if they deploy their arguments on the back of the next major incident that strikes this country. Nothing that legislation can do can prevent the next incident. However, we have an opportunity today not to repeat the mistakes of the past—to look into the future and to try to understand the depths of our responsibility, to nip this in the bud, rather than taking a short-term view.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark, who brings with him extensive experience. It is wrong to hide our experience on the Committee. Not only did my hon. Friend the Member for Newark have extensive time in counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, as a former SAS and Grenadier Guards officer, has first-hand knowledge of violence, terrorism and warfare. I myself spent time in Northern Ireland—contrary to what the Minister alluded to in his earlier reports, I was not a torturer-in-chief or whatever his implications.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I said no such thing.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.