Terrorism (Detention and Human Rights)

I also suspect that many of those who were involved in the debate did not have a chance to research the issue and, probably more to the point, were probably not even aware of its existence. Our discussion with the DPP left us very impressed with the opportunities that the system would offer, including the fact that a charge can be levelled on the basis of suspicion when the evidence is there at a very low level, on the understanding that the way in which terrorism cases are investigated will mean that huge amounts of evidence will become available as the case progresses and will ultimately justify the full charging test. The hon. Gentleman has therefore made an important intervention. Subject to adequate safeguards, we also recommend a relaxation of the existing rules on post-charge questioning, including the possibility of a court being permitted to draw adverse inferences from a refusal to answer questions. That would be compatible with human rights law and would be another useful tool in dealing with some of the concerns that the police have about the need to extend the period of pre-charge detention. My right hon. Friend expressed some scepticism about that proposal and, again, it is not a panacea in itself, but it would be yet another of the reforms that we could introduce in the criminal justice process to strengthen the hand of the police. When I met the head of the anti-terrorism unit, long before all these issues came along, I looked at some of the unit’s many criticisms of the process, and one of them was that it could not interview suspects after charge. My right hon. Friend may well be right and suspects may not answer questions, but the fact that a court could draw inferences from that, as we think it should be able to do, would very much strengthen the hand of the prosecution when suspects do not co-operate. At the moment, such an inference cannot be drawn. In their response to us, the Government say that they will consult on a review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including on this point, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could address the issue and let us know what progress has been made. Another issue that we highlighted was raised with us by the DPP and privately with me on earlier occasions by the anti-terrorism unit. It related to the incentives to those who may be on the periphery of a plot to give evidence. The DPP calls for a more structured procedure, such as systemising lower sentences and proper witness protection arrangements, and we thought that the Government should urgently consider ways of enhancing incentives to give evidence, with the appropriate safeguards that one would expect, to ensure that some of the problems that have arisen in the past—for example, with the supergrass trials—are not repeated. We share the Home Affairs Committee concern that judicial oversight of pre-charge detention is not adequate, although we do not, as we explained, agree with its proposals or with Lord Carlile’s that such oversight be carried out on the basis of an investigative approach. That would create major problems as regards a detained person’s right of access to a court to challenge the legality of his detention. Article 5 requires judicial control over the extension of pre-charge detention in the full sense of an adversarial hearing. In their response to our report, the Government say that they are carefully considering the proposals of Lord Carlile and others on judicial oversight. Again, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us where that thinking has got to. There is no doubt that the subject that we are debating is fundamental to the nature and future of our society. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that both Committees recognise the seriousness and difficulty of the issues that the Government face in constructing an effective counter-terrorism policy while at the same time observing the essential standards of the rule of law and human rights. I hope that, for their part, the Government recognise that both Committees, from our different perspectives, are engaging constructively with those questions in our work and seeking to make positive proposals to assist with that policy. I hope that the Government will become rather more receptive to those proposals than they have been in the past. I also hope that they are persuaded that, in introducing new or consolidating legislation during this Session, they should allow sufficient time for proper parliamentary consideration and scrutiny. By now, experience must have demonstrated to them that that would be in their interests, as well as those of Parliament. More important, it would be in the interests of the country and of keeping it safe from terror.