Terrorism (Detention and Human Rights)

I am pleased to speak in this debate on two such excellent reports. Terrorist attacks involve gross violations against the individuals who are killed or injured, obviously, and gross violations of the fundamental values of civilised democratic societies. We live in a world where terrorist attacks are a reality and we must adapt to the current climate. Some of the new terrorism powers, such as the offence of acts preparatory to terrorism, are therefore entirely justified, but others, such as control orders and the extension of the power to detain without charge, bypass traditional principles of due process and so present us with a challenge to find the line between security and liberty. It is critical that counter-terrorist measures respect human rights and the rule of law. If their sweep is too broad or arbitrary, they may be counter-productive, in that they risk alienating the very sections of the community whose close co-operation and consent is required if terrorism is to be defeated. There is concern that the Government may seek to bring back a provision for 90 days detention without providing supporting evidence. I hope that they have heard enough to understand that, having been bitten in the first outing, they should not come back to the House unless their evidence is incontrovertible. The Home Affairs Committee report focused on problems with how the arguments were presented and on over-politicisation of the issue. It concluded that pre-charge detention has become as much if not more about preventing possible future crimes as the investigation and prosecution of crimes that it is suspected have been committed. That shifts us from traditional principles of British justice. The summary states:"““It is clear that the change in the nature of the terrorist threat has lead to an increasing number of cases in which the arrest has come earlier than would be otherwise the case, because these arrests are primarily intended to protect the public by disrupting terrorist conspiracies. One of the key conclusions of our inquiry””—" which was controversial—"““is that the preventive element of some arrests under the Terrorism Acts should be given clearer and more explicit recognition. Preventive detention is a significant new development, and one that was not made explicit during the passage of the Act.””" So, detention because of what someone might do in future rather than what they are suspected of having done in the past constitutes a real change to our traditional right to liberty and a significant shift in the scales of justice away from innocent until proven guilty.