Terrorism (Detention and Human Rights)

That is always a risk, and I am sure that those who charge people are always mindful of the problems that can be caused, but let us consider what happens in some cases, particularly if a foreign national is in this country illegally, for example. If someone has been arrested on one matter and there is clear evidence of alleged criminality, it is probably likely that he will be remanded in custody, which may be greatly to the advantage of both the security of people and the investigation. Another issue that was raised is adverse inferences in terrorism cases in post-charge interviews. I am a believer that there can be no logical reason for not facilitating post-charge interviews. Provided that such an interview is subject to suitable safeguards, it should be perfectly possible to draw, in respect of a post-charge interview, the adverse inferences that can be drawn in respect of a pre-charge interview. Indeed, it would be illogical if that were not possible. If I may say so to the Minister, I think that if it requires primary legislation, he will have the support of Opposition Members. We will have to examine the issue in detail, but I do not see it as a serious difficulty. Much has been said about intercept evidence. I fully accept that it is not a panacea and that it presents difficulties. Linked to that is the issue of judicial oversight, which has cropped up in the context of dealing with intercept evidence and possibly managing a public interest immunity process or, more widely, supervising terrorism investigations altogether. I am half-French by background, but I could not claim to be an expert on the French system. However, I do worry slightly at times that there seems almost to be a group of mermaids sitting on a rock across the channel—the French system seems to have a magnetic attraction for the British Government. Somehow, things are all so much simpler and easier in France because of the administrative powers that can be had, the long detention of people under investigation, and the investigating and examining magistrates. I happen to believe that our common law system is superior, but that is not to say that we should not be looking at what the French are doing. As I said in an intervention, an examining magistrate is not really an independent judge at all. He is a sort of super-prosecutor designed to provide some level of public reassurance of independence outside the mainstream prosecution service. One need only go and see the way in which such a person operates, including meeting the police and the prosecutors at intervals, to see that he is in fact a prosecutor. We have a long tradition in this country of trusting prosecutors to take independent decisions in the interests of justice. If we are looking for a model such as the one suggested, it is within the Crown Prosecution Service and through the DPP that we should probably be seeking the sort of person we want, rather than—if I may use this expression—tainting the judiciary by using that title for something that is alien to judges. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen will remember that when we had the control order debate, Parliament wanted to give the judges the power to scrutinise the process. The judges did not like that a bit. They went along with it, but they were not happy with it, because they felt that it was dragging them into an arena that was not their key role.