Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Imbert: My Lords, I recall clearly the debate in Committee in your Lordships' House on 13 December, particularly the part relating to Clause 23, when the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsay and Lady Park, proposed that the 28 days agreed to in another place, whereby a terrorist suspect could be held in custody before charge or release, should be increased to 90 days
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1211
as provided for in the original Bill. I supported their argument, which to me was highly persuasive. I have, however, now had the opportunity to study in depth the official Hansard report of that debate. While grateful to all noble Lords who gave strong support to the amendment, I noted with renewed concern the number who expressed their fears that the extension of a period of detention without charge for up to 90 days, albeit with rigorous judicial supervision every seven days, was a denial of the suspect's human rights. It might also be counterproductive and could lead to young Muslims, who felt that the proposed legislation was aimed only at them, seeking what they saw as martyrdom by becoming suicide bombers.
I took note of noble Lords who said that three months' detention without charge could be the trigger for further home-grown terrorism, although I was unhappy to hear that, in colloquial language, we were going "belly-up" for fear of alienation of a particular section of our society here in Britain and that, if we did so, the consequences might be dreadful. Much as I hate giving in to such implied threats, I acknowledge that a three-month detention period without charge, which mischief-makers might make use of at this time of heightened tension, might be used to stir up the passions of young Muslims. I have therefore informed my former professional colleagues that I cannot presently sustain my wholehearted support for their request for three months' detention without charge.
I certainly would not want the deaths of many innocent people on my conscience should the contention be correct that 90 days would lead to impressionable and vulnerable young Muslims sacrificing their own lives and the lives of others by carrying out suicide bomb attacks. But, having been told of the way in which young officers were sent down that darkened tunnel to collect body parts of those who no longer had any civil rights, my conscience would not be clear if I failed to support the request for an extension of what I see as an unworkable and dangerously unreasonable 14 or 28-day limit, if such a limit led to the release of suspected terrorists who subsequently became the purveyors of ghastly death and destruction of many innocent people.
Let us not fool ourselves. We may not have seen anything yet in the way of terrorist outrages. The dreadful incidents so far may, I fear, prove at some time in the future to have been far less devastating than what is to come. I have no secret intelligence about that, of course, but I recall what my noble friend Lord Stevens said when he was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in his warning about terrorist plans. He said:
Some people in this country did not believe him. I have to admit that I hoped he was wrong: but he was shown in unspeakable and atrocious reality to be right. After the July attacks, many politicians and commentators made brave statements about how we would not be bowed and how we would prepare for and deal with terrorism. I wonder where that Churchillian spirit and determination has gone now.
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1212
Just a few months after those July atrocities, and while some of their victims are still in hospital, we hear more about a suspected terrorist's civil rights than about an innocent person's right to life. As I said on 13 December, we are under threat. The steel barriers outside your Lordships' House will not save the lives of those travelling on public transport or attending a large spectator event if terrorists target them. Many noble Lords will recognise the comments of Edmund BurkeI hope that I am right in recalling that it was he who said itthat, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Are we to do nothing or next to nothing and admit to the public that our inaction was because we made a judgment and felt that the risk of alienating some British citizens and possibly denying them their civil rights, with the result that they or others might become suicide bombers, was greater than the risk of terrorist atrocities being committed by those who had not been so detained and investigated?
Since the Committee debate some 43 days ago, in addition to studying the Official Report line by lineto which I shall return brieflyI have endeavoured to carry out my own social researchit is important that we know what the man in the street is sayingrelating to the identification of suspected terrorists and how we should deal with them. To indicate the spread of that research, my informants have included, among many others, my Italian barber, the Cockney driver who sometimes gives me a lift to your Lordships' House, an Iranian minicab driver, my near neighbours, a well spoken accountant from a Tory stronghold in a shire county, an east London Labour councillor and, perhaps most importantly, a Muslim lady shopkeeper.
The noble Lord, Lord Condon, a valued former colleague of mine, in his contribution to the debate on 13 December gave us the meaning of the words "al-Qaeda". I had not known that and was most grateful but no one else to whom I spoke knew that translation. With one exception they all associated "al-Qaeda" with terrorism. The Iranian minicab driver said, "They are the people who are trying to drive us out of this country". He felt very strongly that terrorist acts when committed by Muslims would make more British people think that every Muslim was a terrorist supporter.
The Muslim lady shopkeeper clearly saw this country as a beacon of hope for her and her family but felt that we might not keep it so as we were too soft on those suspected of terrorism or terrorist propaganda; and that unless we acted with firmness good Muslims would be driven from this country, whichin my words, not hersshe undoubtedly saw as a citadel of freedom for her and her children.
Playing devil's advocate, I told my Iranian minicab driver that many people were fearful that if a person were to be detained for three months without charge, it would cause other young people to carry out terrorist acts. It was, however, his view, as it was of the others to whom I spoke, that the reasons for the terrorist attacks were that some people felt they were striking back because of Britain's involvement in the Iraq war, the continued occupation of that country by
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1213
American and British troops and British support for Israel over the Palestinian question. He did not think that 90 days without charge to allow police to complete their inquiries would generate further hostility. He added, "It has got to be done to keep us all safe". My other informants had similar views and I will not repeat to your Lordships what my Cockney driver advocated should be done with anyone preaching terrorism, carrying out acts of terrorism or harbouring terrorists.
The danger, I believe, is that others might take the same view, and if we are perceived by the general public to be doing little or nothing, then I fear that that in itself may have a harmful effect on community relations and the prospects for essential and highly desirable multi-faith and multi-cultural harmony.
I said I would briefly return to the report of the debate in Committee on 13 December. Noble Lords who were present may recall that I gave examples of cases where investigations were complex and sometimes involved further inquiries in foreign countriesin one case in no fewer than 26 foreign jurisdictions. One of these examples was what I said had become known as the "ricin plot". Later in the debate I received a shrill challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, to have the courage to repeat outside the Chamber what I had said. She said:
"Here he is covered by parliamentary privilege, but if he repeats it outside this Chamber, he may find that he is subject to litigation because there was no ricin. I repeat: there was no ricin".[Official Report, 13/12/05; col. 1188.]
I bring this to notice in case other noble Lords felt that I had hidden behind parliamentary privilege and had given misleading information to the Committee that ricin had been found. The noble Baroness was absolutely rightthere was no ricin. I was aware that the noble Baroness knew much more about the case than I did, so I feared that I must have inadvertently misled your Lordships. Since suffering a stroke a few years ago I occasionally juxtapose words. I therefore checked my notes carefully. They showed that I had not said, or had not intended to say, that ricin was present. I respectfully refer the noble Baroness to columns 1163 and 1164 of the Hansard report of that day's proceedings for confirmation.
Noble Lords may find it helpful to know how this came to be known as the "ricin case" in the first place. Information from my former colleagues shows that in January 2003 an original, handwritten Arabic manuscript, containing what appeared to be recipes for poisons and explosives, was recovered in a flat in Wood Green. One of the recipes appearedand I emphasise the word "appeared"to be for ricin. Scientists were asked to test the recipe and they stated that it was viable. To make ricin, certain ingredients and procedures are required. Some of these ingredients were recovered from the flat. Initial presumptive testing by scientists of a pestle and mortar which had been recovered from the flat in Wood Green indicated
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1214
that the mortar contained ricin. However, more sensitive testingincluding, I am told, DNA workled scientists to the contra conclusion that there was no trace of ricin in the mortar. Noble Lords may now understand how this came to be known as the "ricin case", although, as scientific tests subsequently showedand as the noble Baroness was quite right in pointing outthere was no ricin. Perhaps from now on it should be known as the "no ricin case".
I bring this to your Lordships' notice because it shows how these exhaustive scientific procedures indicate the amount of time such tests can taketests which might also help to clear suspects of the alleged offence. This case, unsurprisingly, ended in acquittal. Your Lordships will have gathered, quite rightly, that I returned to seek the views of my former operational colleagues who are charged with the difficultnay, the impossibletask of keeping us all safe while working within the parameters of the present law. It would be quite wrong if, as a former senior police officer, I did not consult them. It would be even more inappropriate now to indulge myself in the civilised atmosphere of your Lordships' House by standing on the operational touchline and making their job even more impossible by throwing intellectual toilet rolls into the goal mouth.
However much my former professional colleagues thought that the limit should be extended to 90 days, as did I, they now understand that this will not be agreed to in this Bill. I told them that there was an amendment to extend the period to 60 days, and sought their views. They said that anything beyond the present time restriction would be an improvement and would enable them to do their job more effectively. I recall that in the December Committee debate the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said:
"Further, work expands to fill the time allotted to it. If you give the police 90 days . . . they will take their 90 days".[Official Report, 13/12/05; col. 1190.]
I happen to trust our judges; I have not always agreed with them throughout my career but I trust them, along with members of the noble Baroness's own profession. I believe that they would be suitably robust, when looking at a case every seven days, to decide whether investigations were being carried out diligently and expeditiously.
We have charged the police and the security services with the onerous task of helping us keep free from the scourge of terrorism. If anyone should think it is not a scourge, let them talk to those fire, ambulance and police personnel who were given the task of helping with the rescue of those who survived and the collection of body parts of those who no longer have any civil rights. Let us give our guardians at least the opportunity to do the job we so much rely on them to do. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that the time limit should be up to 60 days, with a review at least every seven days, thereby showing the public that we are carrying out our duty to maintain public safety in these terrifyingly threatening days.
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1215
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |