| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Joffe: But, my Lords, it is chilling to note how closely our terrorism laws follow the pattern of the South African ones. In 2000, there was detention for seven days; in 2002—only two years later—seven days was extended to 14 days detention. In 2005—only three years later—detention for 90 days was proposed but was reduced in another place to 28 days. But for the reduction from 90 to 28 days, the trend line, if maintained, would have resulted in indefinite detention by about 2012.
The initial 90-days legislation in South Africa met with considerable opposition in the South African Parliament. However, as the government, the police and the white population as a whole became attuned to the concept of detention without trial, subsequent legislation went through with almost no opposition. Helen Suzman—who ironically was appointed an honorary Dame of the British Empire because of her opposition to the laws eroding human rights—was the single MP who opposed the legislation.
Fortunately, unlike in South Africa, there is still great opposition in our Parliament to 90 days and to 60 days. The lesson that should be learnt from the South African experience is that legislation that erodes human rights should be addressed with the greatest care and deliberation. Where there is doubt—as there clearly is about the length of detention—such doubt should be resolved. We should err in favour of the law as it exists, remembering that the procedural safeguards in our law have been built up over centuries precisely because there can be no confidence in the operation of justice if those safeguards are not observed.
It is correct to say that there may be risks in not going from 14 to 60 days or 90 days just as it could be argued that there may be risks in not immediately going to indefinite detention. But risks must be taken in defence of human rights and the rule of law, as is being demonstrated by the risks to which we are putting our Armed Forces in Iraq, in order to introduce democracy and the rule of law into that divided country. If there has to be a further erosion of human rights to protect the public, I would support an arbitrary 28 days rather than an arbitrary 60 or 90 days.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I suspect that all of us are pretty familiar with the arguments around this issue of where the balance ought to lie between individual rights to liberty and the collective rights to security. However, I am bound to say that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, I do not think that the situation in this country in 2006 is remotely like South Africa under apartheid. There is no white minority suppressing a black majority. Everybody over the age of 18 who is not in prison has a vote. We are all equal under the law. We have equal rights legislation, which protects us in respect of gender and race, and we now have religious protection
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1227
for all. Our police are controlled by civil authorities who are elected by all the people of this country. Whichever party is in government, whether it is this side of the House or that side—or even the other side of the House—we live in a good and decent country. To draw the analogy with South Africa is a great shame.
Like many others, I have enormous sympathy with those who support the argument for 28 days. None of us wants anyone languishing in custody who should not be there. All of us recognise the enormously powerful arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, when we discussed this in Committee, about the risks of fracturing our society if we allow a situation to develop that can adversely affect a particular group of our citizens.
I am sure that each of us has struggled with what we believe is right. When I first became a Minister in the Foreign Office I remember the principles that guided the decisions that all Ministers have to take when dealing with matters that impinge on international affairs. The truth is that the first duty of any state is the security of its citizens. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said that it was an argument about security of the state. Not for me. It is an argument about the security of people—not the security of state institutions, but the security of real people.
Security is not the only duty. The promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law are all vital—I use that word advisedly. They are vital, but governments, democracy, human rights and the rule of law do not flourish without proper security. Security is the first prerequisite, without which all those other vital components do not take root, and certainly do not flourish.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, remarked, I spoke in Committee about my experiences in dealing with these issues as a Minister, and about dealing with other jurisdictions, which are sometimes very different from our own, and when time to argue cases over individuals is vital. I shall not run though those arguments now, but they are compelling. It takes a great deal of time, even when dealing with a friendly jurisdiction, let alone one that is a little less friendly than it might be.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said that it was easy to paint the picture of 7/7, but that it was less easy to picture the misery of those who are held without charge for 60 days. I found that equivalence entirely misplaced. A lost life is a life lost for ever. Sixty lost days are, indeed, dreadful when they are lost unfairly. But it is 60 days, not 60 years. Furthermore, the 60 days are reviewed every seven days, unlike 60 years of a lost life which will never be reviewed at all.
6 pm
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that there is no other country that uses this period of detention. I am sure that he is right. As I understand it, however, there are other jurisdictions where individuals are charged with minor offences and held
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1228
for lengthy periods while the authorities draw together the evidence for the substantive charges of terrorism that follow. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord really does believe that somebody languishing unfairly for 60 days with a review every seven days is treated so much worse than somebody held on a minor charge that everybody recognises is an artificial charge while the substantive charges are drawn together.
The noble and learned Lord went on to ask why ACPO did not make these points in 2003. I cannot answer that because I do not speak for ACPO. But I know that in the past two and a half years our experience of dealing with terrorism has developed enormously. We have recognised the problems of dealing with foreign jurisdictions that I indicated when we last discussed this and we recognise those far more clearly. My practical experience was in the years 2003 to 2005. My position is not—as the noble and learned Lord indicated that he thought ACPO's position was—a reaction to 7/7, because my ministerial experience ceased before that date.
I do not believe that if the terrorists who attacked this country on 7/7 had had the opportunity to kill hundreds or thousands they would not have taken it; they certainly would. Our first duty here, as legislators, is to innocent people of all races and all religions. Nobody has spoken about their human rights and their right to life. That right has to take precedence here. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was quite right when he used the words "fundamental rights". The right to life is the most fundamental of all. I believe that our first duty is to keep those people safe. It is not to take risks with their safety. We have a better chance of doing that by supporting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Sewel than we do by sticking with 28 days.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I support very much the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. As she knows, terrorism now is not just in Northern Ireland by Northern Irish citizens or Irish citizens or in England just by English citizens. It is international terrorism that we have to fight. We must take the necessary measures against people who allow their own co-terrorists to be killed as suicide bombers while they themselves live in luxury in a completely different part of the world. We should be supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Imbert. I shall mention only one point: the problem that it can take up to 60 days to decrypt messages. Terrorists are using complicated systems to converse with each other across the world. How can you put somebody on charge within 28 days when you cannot get the evidence and when you cannot get even the opportunity of applying for up to 60 days in order to do so? I support the amendment.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I was delighted to hear that Rabbie Burns was to be the poet of the day, given that his birthday is tomorrow. I was surprised that my noble friend Lord Foulkes did not find anything pertinent to this debate. It is true that there is no reference to terrorism, but there is reference
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1229
to the rights of man. In the poet's work there is a great poem called "A Man's A Man For A' That". In it, Burns says very rude things about Lords, I am afraid. In fact, he says:
and says some very unprepossessing things about the word birkie, meaning a fool. I do not know who he might have been referring to, and whether there is anyone who would fall under that description in this House. But he had a low opinion of Lords because he felt that we should not value Lords any more than anyone else when it came to the issue of rights.
Burns was actually taking up the work of Tom Paine. We should be very proud of the fact that human rights had their beginnings here in Britain, in our culture and within our legal framework. The common law has always espoused human rights. So, when we talk of them, they are not some foreign import but something deep in the bowels of our own system. My noble friend Lady Symons says that we are debating the great balancing act between individual rights to liberty as distinct from collective rights to security. All I would say is that individual rights to liberty inevitably are about our collective rights too, because liberty is precious and important to all of us not only as a community but as individuals.
In this debate we are looking at the abandonment of something very important—the necessary protections of liberty. It is right that when exceptional circumstances arise, such as terrorism, we may have to look again. But in the past few years, since 11 September, we have seen a quadrupling of the previous extended provisions for dealing with terrorism. A period of seven days is exceedingly greater than the period that we apply in normal crimes. As your Lordships know, the period of seven days was extended in 2003, not very long ago, to 14 days. Now it will be extended to 28 days. We have already seen the period multiplied fourfold. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who has great experience as a police officer, said that we should see how that goes before we start leaping in to holding a person for three months.
I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that, around the world, we are looked to as regards this business of liberty and how precious it is. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned, Louise Arbour, who is now the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, sent a letter to our Ambassador to the United Nations raising deep concerns about this legislation. She was a Supreme Court judge in Canada and before that a prosecutor at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. She knows the law from all sides. She pointed out how this matter affects human rights issues around the world, for we are at the forefront in saying to the world that standards have to be set even when dealing with what people call terrorism. We know that as soon as we give sanction to the ready detention of people in places such as
25 Jan 2006 : Column 1230
Zimbabwe, Putin's Russia or Uzbekistan because they are terrorists, we are giving licence to worse being done. We will be pointed to as leaders in this field. We therefore have to do this with great caution, not only because we are concerned about the safety of our own country but because we are concerned about the safety and standards in our world. We should take that seriously.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, for correcting information that he gave to the House about the alleged conspiracy concerning ricin. All those who were charged were acquitted. In correcting him by pointing out that it was not a ricin trial because of those acquittals, I was asking him to correct the impression that an extension of time would have allowed for further investigation and might have created a different outcome. That is not the case.
There was no issue concerning extended times in that case where it might have made the difference. He gave the example of someone being granted bail and leaving the jurisdiction before proceedings took place. The impression may have mistakenly been given that granting bail was related to time limits. It was not. The concern that I have is that we have no evidence on which to say that extended time limits would have made any difference to any of the cases that we have so far dealt with. So I return to what the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, which is that we are here about to do something radically different in the protection of citizens. We are about to remove the normal standards and to detain people for 28 days. Let us see how that goes before we do something as damaging to our legal system and to the rights that we all hold dear by extending this to 60 days. So I ask that we proceed with caution because the whole issue of liberty is so precious to us all and we should go with care and with concern for what the outcomes might inevitably be.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |