Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate this evening. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. We all appreciate the seriousness of the terrorist threat, and I would not for a moment think that any of these comments mean that that is not appreciated. First, it is dangerous to look at other countries and say whether the way in which they do things is better than our approach. For example, the length of time Australia will keep someone before charging them was cited. Of course, in Australia, if they stop questioning the man—which they do—they are then allowed to hold him as long as they wish; they will not be questioning him, but he will be held in detention. We must look at these matters carefully. There are other countries one could look at which have far less tight rules. I am very proud of Britain, and the fact that we look after the freedom of the individual to the extent that we do. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, we are not looking at going any further tonight. We have produced a consultative document and the Government believe that there is a good case for having more time, but we need to talk across the board with numerous people—the judiciary and everybody—about how we should extend it, how much further we go, whether we want a finite figure—we might have to come up with one—and what is the best way of going about that. We intend to have a detailed consultation because we realise the significance of this for civil liberties. However, like all noble Lords, I would not want to find that the police had delayed arresting people of whom they were aware—perhaps a cell about to carry out a terrorist plot—because they knew that they did not have sufficient evidence and would not have sufficient time to gather the data to have a sensible prosecution. There is no doubt that in two cases—the alleged airline plot and the Greater Manchester thing—we needed up to 28 days. Noble Lords can ask for much greater detail on this. I will look to see if it is possible to give it, as I would like to do so. I have been assured that all that time was necessary. The sheer complexity of the problem means that we might need more time in future, but we need consensus on that. We need to look at it very carefully and to talk to everyone to make sure that we have the right judicial oversight. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made the point that the period is up to 28 days. We do not use them very often, but if we need them, they are there and we can use them. We have needed them on two occasions. It is important that we have that ability, which is why it is so important that we have this capability for another year. As far as the statement by Ken Jones is concerned, within our consultation, we will consider all the comments. I do not think that, "““as long as it takes””," is a particularly clever statement. I am sure that he did not mean it exactly like that, but we will look at it in the consultation. I am sure that, at the end of this, we would all like to feel that there is greater security for the average citizen of this country because we are able to arrest people quickly, before they can carry out a crime—normally a suicide attack where we cannot take the risk of not arresting them—but when we know we have not got enough evidence at that stage to charge them and take them to court. There may be points that I have not answered. Some useful comments were made for the right reasons, not because noble Lords do not appreciate how important combating terrorism is, but because of civil liberties that are important to us as a nation. If I have not answered them, I shall give a written answer. In the mean time, for the reasons that I have given, it is, unfortunately, necessary—it would be nice if we did not have to do this—to keep this extended period. I therefore commend the order to the House. On Question, Motion agreed to.