Examination of Witness (Questions 75-79)
LORD CARLILE
OF BERRIEW
QC
14 FEBRUARY 2006
Q75 Chairman: Lord Carlile, thank you
very much indeed for joining us. As you know, this is the second
evidence session in our inquiry into the detention powers. We
decided to have the inquiry because of the extent of the parliamentary
controversy about this issue of the Terrorism Bill and in the
knowledge that the Government was likely to return to terrorism
legislation in the next 18 months. Of course yesterday we had
the Chancellor of the Exchequer backing an extension for the 28
days which is currently going through the system, so it is basically
quite a live issue for the Committee and we are very grateful
to you for joining us for this session to share your knowledge
in this area. Can I start with a fairly general question. You
have in the past criticised the level of public information which
has been made available about the proposed extension of pre-charge
detention and also the failure to explain exactly what the problem
was that was being tackled. How do you think the issues could
have been explained better both in terms of the problem to be
tackled and the justification for the powers?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I will
give you an example to start with, if I may. Recently I produced
my first report on control orders. In an appendix to that report,
I reproduced, and this was not opposed, but I reproduced the control
order that is imposed on most of the "controllees",
as I call them, and that enabled you, parliamentarians, and the
public at large to see the extent of the restrictions placed on
people who are subject to control orders, something which had
not been in the public domain before. The extent of the restrictions
could tell the public two things, possibly in the alternative,
possibly conjunctively: that the people who are controlled are
dangerous to the extent that those controls are required; and/or
that the extent of the controls is so great that they come to
the very limit of restrictions on human rights. Now, I think it
is legitimate to have that debate from the proper level of public
information as to what the restrictions are. I believe the same
applies across the board on these issues. The Government should
give the public as much information as they can without compromising
public safety. I think this is one of the few things in the area
of terrorism legislation that the Americans are better at than
us. I hasten to add that I think that their legislation, the Patriot
Act, for example, would never have got through the two Houses
of this Parliament and it probably would have brought a government
down, but, in terms of public information, they give much more.
Q76 Chairman: That is a very helpful
reply. You indicate that, in relation to control orders, more
information could be made available to the public. What would
you have liked to see the Government say about the nature of the
problem that led to the call for increased pre-charge detention?
What sort of information about the problem that was trying to
be tackled could have been made available, in your view, and was
not?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I would
like the Government to say more about the nature of the terrorist
threat. The information is actually available in the public domain;
you just have to know where to go and look for it. I would prefer
it if the Government made it a little more accessible and perhaps
I can give you an example. If you look at what is generally called
the "first generic judgment" of the Special Immigration
Appeals Commission in what had become known as the `Belmarsh cases',
you would see there a fairly encyclopaedic description by a judge,
by a High Court judge, of the nature of al-Qaeda and its connected
organisations at the time that judgment was given. Journalists
on the whole, if those present will forgive me, are rather lazy
and they like to have stories written for them, by and large,
and do not like to look in rather dense resources, like the judgment
of Mr Justice Collins there. I would like to see the Government
simplify that kind of information because it is a very long judgment,
by putting it in the public domain so that people understand the
complexity and, therefore, often impenetrability of the terrorism
threat.
Q77 Chairman: Would it be too much
to ask you, for the purposes of this Committee, to give two or
three further details about the sorts of issues which you understand,
the sort of factual issues which you understand which you suspect
the public are not aware of or do not appreciate?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I could
select, for example, as I mentioned earlier, the complexity of
al-Qaeda which is not an organisation, as I understand it, in
the same terms as, say, the Provisional IRA; rather, it is a loose
co-fraternity of people with similar political and terrorism interests,
so that would be one example and I think more should be said about
that. Another example, and this is getting into a sensitive area,
is the issue of the way in which imams are allowed to enter this
country and take up posts in mosques around the country. There
are some wonderful imams in this country, I have met a few of
them, but very little has been done in the past to look in any
detail, I believe, into the past history of imams who have gone
into some cities. The good imams do not want the bad imams anyway.
There is an issue here which needs to be discussed. I would give
you two more examples very briefly. One is the radicalisation
mainly of young men in universities. If you talk particularly
to young female students in the larger, and perhaps more rackety
universities, you will find that there is a degree of concern
expressed about some societies in those universities from which
women are usually excluded and where there might be Islamic radicalisation.
The final example I would give is the issue of radicalisation
in custodial settings. Richard Reed, the shoe-bomber, appears
to be somebody who was radicalised in a custodial setting. I can
only give you anecdotes on that, but I have received anecdotal
evidence from governor grades that this is occurring and that
it is a worry to them. I do not want to exaggerate the problem,
but there certainly is an issue in that context.
Q78 Chairman: That last point in
fact is one that this Committee drew attention to in a report
produced nearly a year ago now based on our study of what had
been happening in France and the Netherlands, so the Committee
is certainly familiar with that. If I understand what you say,
Lord Carlile, when it comes to explaining the nature of the problem,
what you are really talking about here is actually having a much
higher level of public understanding about the nature of the terrorist
threat as a whole, if that is right. What do you think could have
been done in general to explain the case for increased detention
more directly? Clearly one can understand the terrorist threat
does not necessarily lead to the argument for increased pre-charge
detention, so what could have been done by the Government to make
that case more clearly?
Lord Carlile of Berriew: The Government,
I think, has learnt the lesson of what it did not do, but should
have done, by announcing that the new Terrorism Bill, whenever
it appears, the consolidating and amending Bill that Charles Clarke
announced, will go to a scrutiny committee. I believe that a lot
more would have been achieved if the current Bill, as was the
original intention, but later withdrawn, had been placed before
a scrutiny committee. As it happens, I chaired the joint scrutiny
committee, and there was at least one person here who was a member
of that committee, on the draft Mental Health Bill. The result
of the evidential process of that committee has been positive
in legislative terms in that we do not yet have a Mental Health
Bill, so somebody is thinking about the findings that the Committee
made. I believe that an evidential process would have been more
successful than the political process and may, for example, have
amended the views of highly respected parliamentarians, like Mr
Winnick, if I may say so, who took an entirely understandable
approach in parliamentary terms, in House of Commons terms, to
the way the Bill was presented.
Q79 Chairman: Mr Winnick will have
his go in a moment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: I thought
he might!
|
