Terrorism (Detention and Human Rights)

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the reports. I am grateful to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights for producing them. They both strike me as being full of useful and interesting material that can make a powerful contribution to the debate. We have to face up to the fact that when serious legislation has come to the Floor of the House over the past 12 months and beyond, we have been in the midst of a rather fevered debate. That is profoundly unsatisfactory, because there clearly is a common meeting of minds on many of the things on which we have to make a decision, just as there has been today. I start with something that may seem so basic that it is not worth saying. I entirely agree with the Home Affairs Committee that we face a serious terrorist threat. I have had the opportunity of debating that in the past, but I restate my belief now, not least because I deal with community cohesion matters for my party, that my experience leads me to suppose that the extent of the threat may be understated. I have no difficulty with the figures recently put forward by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller. I regret to say that they are entirely in keeping with the impressions that I get when travelling up and down the country doing my community cohesion work. After the July bombings, there was a slight sense that the Government, perhaps with a desire to reassure the public, projected the impression that the bombers came from Planet Tharg—that they were from outer space—and that those monsters who had suddenly appeared in our midst could be isolated and removed. My conclusion, painful though it may be, is that that does not bear scrutiny. The bombers undoubtedly have international connections, as do other terrorists threatening our country, but they are also a home-grown phenomenon. They are deeply embedded in certain sections of our society and, as I said, they are angry and alienated, and have chillingly distorted perspectives about the general state of the world and the society in which they live. That is a big challenge for us all. It is precisely that challenge that has always coloured my approach and that of my party to the matter of security. At the end of the day, there are no short cuts to be had. I fear very much that the problem will be with us for some time—we could easily be talking of one or two generations. It will be a battle for hearts and minds. It will not be a clash of civilisations, but a battle about values. We will win that debate if we are strong in asserting our own values, which will allow a much better environment to exist, in which people of diverse faiths and backgrounds can live in peace, prosperity and freedom, than the alternatives. For that reason, we must be careful how we deal with the security issues relating to terrorism. In all our debates—whether over 90-day detention or over control orders, which oddly enough I believe better highlights the problem—we must be careful that what we do does not give even an impression that might undermine our core values of freedom and the rule of law in the process. Language matters. Even the way in which the Government come to the House to ask for more powers matters, because it can send out powerful signals about the underlying intentions that they—and we, if we co-operate—have. Many of the communities from which the bombers and terrorists spring are affected by profound paranoia, believing that inimical forces are working against them, their religion and their community. Our actions can therefore act as a powerful fuel, making the engagement process that can bring them out of that mindset much more difficult. It is with that in mind that I shall deal with some of the issues that both Committees have considered. I start with 90-day detention. Much has been said, and I do not wish to go over old ground. However, the simple fact is that when 90-day detention was introduced in the Commons, the case for it was not properly made. A decision taken by an ACPO committee—as I said earlier, it was soon revealed by subsequent inquiry that it could have been divided on the question, with some members feeling that they were being hijacked into making a precipitate decision that might have an adverse impact on relations with the Muslim communities in Britain—that was translated into flimsy bits of paper, as highlighted by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). In the course of two weeks of polemic, it was elevated into holy writ. That illustrates precisely how not to approach such debates. I have always accepted that there were powerful arguments for extending the 14-day period to 28 days. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we did not decide 28 days on a rational basis. It was a compromise, based on gut feelings and talking to people. I suspect that we probably got it about right. Indeed, I have seen persuasive evidence for 28 days. However, it is a regrettable fact that, at the time we debated it, I doubt we had a rationale behind the decisions. The evidence simply was not available for the 90-day detention period and I am interested to learn that the Attorney-General’s current view is that an extension beyond 28 days is not justified. I am pragmatic, as is my party, about these issues. If powerful and persuasive arguments can be advanced which indicate that a move from 28 days needs to be made, we will consider it and if necessary we will restrict our distaste for it. However, at the moment the argument is not there and I will need a lot of persuasion and evidence to shift my position. That is not to say that, on our part, moving from 28 days becomes the ditching of some holy writ; it does not. But we must bear it in mind that every day that we extend the principle of pre-charge detention, we are subtly completely undermining some of our basic, core legal principles, and it rapidly turns into detention without trial.