Terrorism (Detention and Human Rights)

The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) certainly has more extensive and recent military experience than I. We listened with great interest to what he said about his experience in Northern Ireland. I am glad that we have the opportunity today to discuss the two reports. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, and I enjoyed—if that is the right word—our inquiry. At the end of the day, I could not go along with the report; I voted against, for reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) knows about. However, I hope that he, other members of the Committee of all political persuasions and I came to certain common conclusions. There is a difference between the IRA murders and the terrorist threat that we now face. The IRA murdered indiscriminately; for example, 21 people were murdered in Birmingham, quite near my constituency, in November 1974. The IRA certainly did not take steps to minimise the murders. There was also the Guildford bombing, and the bombing on Remembrance day 1987 in Northern Ireland, where most of the atrocities were committed. Of course, there were also loyalist murder gangs who murdered ordinary civilian Catholics who were in no way involved in paramilitary activity. I suppose that the present-day mass murderers are different to this degree: they bring religion into it. They believe that they are carrying out the will of the god in whom they believe and that they will go to paradise. I doubt whether the IRA murderers took the view that they would go immediately to heaven, but the present-day terrorists believe that they will, and that they will wake up with 72 virgins or otherwise. Sometimes it is said that those of us opposed to any further extension of detention time place far too much emphasis on civil liberties at the expense of protecting this country against terror. That accusation is common. It is not necessarily made by the Government, but the argument has gone—even more so since 7/7—that we are so interested in civil liberties that we do not understand the acute terrorist threat. I do not believe that that accusation is right in any way. The hon. Member for Newark said that he was satisfied with seven days, and could accept 14 days and just about swallow 28 days. It is interesting to note that in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the debates on the increase in the period of detention without charge from seven to 14 days occurred without any Divisions. Of course, there were reservations; only a very odd House of Commons and House of Lords would be willing to increase that period without expressing concern and reservation, bearing in mind this country’s long tradition that people should not be held for such a long period without being charged or released. The 14 days was agreed to in the House of Commons on 20 May 2003, without any Division; in the Lords, it was agreed to in October of that year—again, without a Division. I have tried to recollect my views at the time. I am almost certain that I did not participate in the debate because in 2003—before 7/7, of course—I was persuaded that since there could be an acute terrorist attack, it would be reasonable to increase the period from seven to 14 days. I always went along with the view that some atrocity would happen, and I continue to take that view. My concern arose when it was proposed that the period should be 90 days. It is interesting that the 28 days amendment was accepted, again, without a vote. The hon. Member for Newark said that he swallowed it with some difficulty—so be it—but there was no vote. The Conservative Opposition did not vote against 28 days; neither did the Liberal Democrats. Of course, just as when we moved from 7 to 14 days, there were concerns and reservations. We would all like to reduce the period when it is appropriate to do so, but, given the circumstances at the time and the terrorist threat faced by this country, it was agreed to increase it. There is a reference in paragraph 144 on page 45 of the Home Affairs Committee report to what I would describe as a foolish and rather misguided move by Government ultra-loyalists in the House of Lords to extend the period to 60 days. As stated in the report, it was defeated by 210 to 108 votes. I understand that the Government decided that they would not involve themselves one way or the other but would leave it to the Lords to decide. It would have been much better if the Government had told the ultra-loyalists that it was a foolish step to take and had tried to persuade them—perhaps they would not have succeeded—not to do what they did. The extension to 14 days did not come into force until 20 January 2004, and much was made of that in the debate on 90 days on 9 November last year, as hon. Members may recall. The extension to 28 days came into force on 25 July. There is an interesting point that the Minister may wish to explain. If there was such urgency, if it was essential that 90 days should be brought into force, why was there such a delay before the Act came into force? There seems to have been, shall we say, a certain lack of urgency, despite what the Government said in the debate last year. I tried to find out how many of those who were detained and then released were later charged with terrorist offences. I tabled two parliamentary questions and on each occasion was told that it was not possible to answer on grounds of cost. It is an impertinence to the House of Commons that we should be denied an answer on an issue as important as how many people are detained, released and then charged—or not charged, as the case may be—with terrorist offences. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has given me a note assuring me that the Home Office is looking into the matter. I hope that he will not mind my mentioning this, as in some respects it was a private conversation. I asked him whether we could have the information for this debate, but he said, ““No, it has taken too much time.”” Taken too much time? How many people have been held and then released? I know that the House of Commons computers are not always what they should be, but I should not have thought that obtaining the information would be so difficult. Perhaps the Minister will explain the problems when he replies. Bearing in mind that 28 days has been in operation for some five months only, I hope there will not be a move by the Government to reintroduce 90 days. There is a rumour going around—in fact, more than one rumour—that they will, but it would be wrong to do that. It would certainly divide the House again, but, for all I know, the proposal may be carried. Some of those who voted for 28 days as opposed to 90 days—but perhaps not my hon. Friend the Minister—may change their mind. I have not carried out a survey among colleagues who voted for 28 days as opposed to 90 days, but neither have I found many who have changed their mind. Indeed, I have yet to find anyone who has. It is clear that any proposal for 90 days or, indeed, for 45 or 60 days—there are other rumours—would cause the same difficulties for the Government. There will be the same bitterness and controversy in Labour’s ranks. I should have thought that we could avoid that. If there were compelling, clear, hard evidence that an extension is necessary, I believe that the House of Commons would agree to one. But since the 90 days debate—in the past few weeks—the Attorney-General has said that he has not seen any evidence that persuades him to support an extension. Imagine the Government reintroducing the proposal. Even if the Attorney-General were to change his mind by that time, it is obvious that Labour critics such as myself and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members would endlessly quote what he had said. The most senior Law Officer in the land has said that he has seen no evidence to justify an extension beyond 28 days. My advice to the Government—they may not want any advice from me; so be it—is to accept the fact that Parliament agreed to double the detention period from 14 to 28 days. To repeat myself, it has been in operation for only five months, the most senior Law Officer has stated that he has seen no evidence to justify an extension, and both Select Committee reports had reservations and so on but came to the same conclusion. In such circumstances, I hope that the Government will let the matter rest for the time being.