Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

As a Government, we feel that the imbalance in that risk is simply too great and not legislating is a risk we should not take with the lives of our population. Having made that decision, how can we safeguard the rights of individuals caught up in this process? There has been detailed consultation across the board on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, pointed out that she has never known so much consultation by a Home Secretary. The other place demanded a number of extra safeguards, including stronger parliamentary involvement. A number of people from all parties decided that.

I have to be careful what I say, but to my mind the judicial safeguards that already exist are without a doubt the most important to secure an individual’s rights. It is important to remember that a judge may grant extensions for only a few more hours—or maybe a day—over the 28-day limit, but in highly pressured situations where the CPS and police are trying to secure sufficient evidence to charge, those additional few hours may make all the difference. Additionally, the fact that the DPP has to submit a bid in conjunction with a senior police officer to the Home Secretary before the Home Secretary may increase the detention limit adds further to that protection. As we know, the current DPP would look at that in great detail if he were about to do it. The fact that the Home Secretary has to go before the House, as has been pointed out by noble Lords, will focus that Home Secretary’s mind. I do not believe that it will be done lightly.

I was concerned, as are a number of others in the Committee, that the safeguards had become rather cumbersome. Indeed, I was very concerned, so specifically asked ACPO if they were workable. It said, “Yes. The proposal is a bit clumsy but it is workable”. That is

13 Oct 2008 : Column 539

good enough for me. As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, we can readdress it in the future anyway. Some have suggested that there may be confusion between the role of Parliament and the judiciary. I can understand that, but it represents a misreading of the provisions. The role of Parliament is to discuss and, if so minded, approve the order-making power to apply for and grant up to 42 days’ detention. The courts, in contrast, assess on a case-by-case basis whether the police and CPS need more time to collect and examine evidence in order that a charge may be brought. I believe that it is the judiciary that safeguards the rights of the individual.

Concern has been expressed about parliamentary debate being limited. I could go into the things that could be debated, but there is no point, as I identified the key balance between the two. As I have already said, ACPO considers this to be workable, and although it is rather inelegant, it possibly gives more protections for those caught up in the process. Clearly Members from all parties in the other place felt they wanted those, so they got them.

A great deal of nonsense has been talked about global comparisons. First, I should say that as long as our legal system is compatible with our human rights obligations—I am entirely satisfied that the Bill’s proposals are compatible—I do not really care what other countries do. My prime concern is the safety of our citizens and visitors to this country. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and others, delude themselves if they think that people in these other countries are held for these short times. I am constantly talking to my opposite number. I will not go into detail—I get into enough trouble as it is—but I assure you that you are bloody lucky to live in this country. That is all I would say. I do not intend to go into the detail here, but I might do so on a private one-on-one basis. I also never cease to be amazed how people who despise and hate our country and who are here illegally fight tooth and nail to avoid being sent to any other jurisdiction. I try to send them to all sorts of others, but they do not want to go to any of them.

Finally, and importantly, there is understandable concern that this proposed back-pocket measure will alienate communities. That is an important point. I am particularly proud of the advances we have made in the past 15 months with the “prevent” strand of our counterterrorist strategy. We have done a great deal in that area. In the case of this Bill we have undertaken extensive consultation, including with representatives from Muslim communities and other faith and community groups. It was quite clear that pre-charge detention was in no way near the top of their concerns and we have seen no evidence to suggest that the 28-day limit has undermined their support in dealing with terrorism. However, as we have made clear, we will undertake a review of the impact of counterterrorism legislation on the Muslim community.

Lord Ahmed: Will the Minister indicate the survey and which Muslim communities were consulted on the pre-trial period? Where did they agree that they accepted 42 days instead of 28? Only one organisation accepted that, which was patronised with money and grants.

13 Oct 2008 : Column 540

Lord West of Spithead: I did not say that people had said, “Gosh, we support 42 days”. I said that we saw no evidence to suggest that this undermined their support. My noble friend talks of patronising. I fear that sometimes people are rather patronising on this subject. Muslim communities are no different from any others in that they want criminals caught and prosecuted and want the police to have the powers to do that. Some people patronise them. The Bill contains measures to enhance and protect national security and it is for the greater good of all communities, including Muslims, who are an integral part of our society. I think that they see that as well.

I have spoken at length but make no apology as this is an important matter which, if we get wrong, we could all live to regret. When the need for more than 28 days arrives—and it certainly will—we can either have a well considered and debated back-pocket measure in place ready to make available to prosecutors or we will be forced to release terrorists on to our streets, unless some hurried legislation is passed and we all know that hurried legislation in a period of emergency is bad legislation. I assure the Committee that whoever is in power will find it a very uncomfortable moment.

I therefore ask for Amendment No. 29 to be withdrawn and that Clauses 22 to 32 and Schedule 2 stand part of the Bill.

6.30 pm

Lord Dear: I shall take no more than two minutes of your Lordships’ time. We are already approaching 11 hours of debate in your Lordships' House, if one includes the Second Reading and today’s proceedings. I am most impressed with the commitment of all sides of the Committee in trying to find a solution. I am also very grateful to the three co-signatories to my amendment, who spoke so well at the beginning of the debate.

I shall pick out only four points and shall give them one line each, as it were. I have heard no evidence of a current need to extend. That is probably given on both sides. I have listened very closely to what successive DPPs said. They do not need it now; neither do they see a need in the future. Please note that they are the people who make the decision on the ground while the clock is running. I have heard no challenge to the suggestion—more than a suggestion—that I and many others have put forward that it is possible to use existing law when running through the 28-day process to charge what, with the greatest respect to him, the Minister called holding charges. They are not holding charges. No one can say that charges of possession of explosive materials or preparatory acts of terrorism are holding charges. They are serious in their own right. If the investigation is continued beyond that point, and the prime offence is charged later, then so be it. We have heard a lot about the threshold test that allows that sort of thing to go forward.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting at this late stage. He suggested that people should be charged with, for example, possession of explosives. Will he give the Committee his realistic assessment of how long they would be

13 Oct 2008 : Column 541

likely to spend in custody after being charged with such an offence? Would it be more than an extra 14 days or less?

Lord Dear: That is the case. We are talking about the difference between being held in custody—it is no good the noble Lord shaking his head—not knowing why you are there or what the charge is and being charged and in the legal process.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: I—

Lord Dear: No, I will not give way.

The difference is obvious. In this hypothetical case of possession of explosives, you charge immediately. I repeat myself for, I think, the third time in your Lordships' House. You charge the offence, you give access to a solicitor, and you tell what the offence is. You are into the judicial process. It is for the courts to decide whether the prosecution is delaying. The courts have many resources for forcing the prosecution to bring the case as speedily as possible—it is no good the noble Lord raising his eyebrows because that is a fact. That is a perfectly justifiable way of going forward.

I was disappointed that the Minister should almost in one line, and getting a laugh in the process, overlook the fact that common-law countries do not even approach 28 days. The nearest is 12 days. The argument follows immediately: if they can make do with 12 days or single figures, why are we looking, in any circumstances, to go to 42 days?

Lastly, ACPO is divided. It agrees with that. Andy Hayman, who is recently out of office as an assistant commissioner, said that the proposals are bureaucratic, convoluted and unworkable. He was supported by a range of law officers in your Lordships' House: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Lyell of Markyate, Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. One could go on. If they do not know rather more than ACPO, then I am not sure what we should be debating today.

We have now been going for approaching 11 hours. I am not satisfied that we have heard anything today that causes me to change my mind or to think that this amendment should be dropped. I beg leave to test the opinion of the Committee.

6.35 pm

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 309; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 1


Addington, L.
Adebowale, L.
Ahmed, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Ampthill, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Avebury, L.
Bagri, L.

13 Oct 2008 : Column 542

Baker of Dorking, L.
Ballyedmond, L.
Barker, B.
Bates, L.
Best, L.
Bhatia, L.
Bilimoria, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blackwell, L.
Blaker, L.
Bledisloe, V.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Boothroyd, B.
Bottomley of Nettlestone, B.
Bowness, L.
Boyce, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Brennan, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Bridges, L.
Broers, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnett, L.
Burns, L.
Buscombe, B.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Cameron of Dillington, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Carrington, L.
Cathcart, E.
Chadlington, L.
Chandos, V.
Chorley, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Cobbold, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Colwyn, L.
Condon, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Courtown, E.
Coussins, B.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Dear, L. [Teller]
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Dundee, E.
Dykes, L.
Eccles, V.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Emerton, B.
Erroll, E.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Falkland, V.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Fearn, L.
Feldman, L.
Fellowes, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fookes, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Fowler, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Freeman, L.
Freyberg, L.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Garel-Jones, L.
Geddes, L.
Glasgow, E.
Glenarthur, L.
Glentoran, L.
Goodhart, L.
Goodlad, L.
Goschen, V.
Grantchester, L.
Greaves, L.
Greengross, B.
Greenway, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Guthrie of Craigiebank, L.
Hameed, L.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Hanningfield, L.
Harries of Pentregarth, L.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Haskins, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Hogg, B.
Home, E.
Hooper, B.
Hooson, L.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hylton, L.
Inglewood, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
James of Holland Park, B.
Janvrin, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Joffe, L.
Jopling, L.
Judd, L.
Kalms, L.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Kimball, L.
King of Bridgwater, L.
Kingsland, L.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Laird, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lane of Horsell, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Leach of Fairford, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Lindsay, E.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Listowel, E.

13 Oct 2008 : Column 543

Liverpool, E.
Lloyd of Berwick, L.
Lloyd-Webber, L.
Lucas, L.
Luce, L.
Ludford, B.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
Lyell of Markyate, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Mancroft, L.
Manningham-Buller, B.
Mar, C.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mawson, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Meacher, B.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Mogg, L.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Montrose, D.
Morgan, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Moser, L.
Murphy, B.
Naseby, L.
Neill of Bladen, L.
Neville-Jones, B.
Newby, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Onslow, E.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Ouseley, L.
Owen, L.
Palumbo, L.
Parkinson, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Patten, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Plumb, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Prior, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Ramsbotham, L.
Rana, L.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees-Mogg, L.
Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Rennard, L.
Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Richardson of Calow, B.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogan, L.
Roper, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Rowlands, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Sandberg, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Sandwich, E.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Selborne, E.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Selsdon, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Skidelsky, L.
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Southwark, Bp.
Sterling of Plaistow, L.
Stern, B.
Stern of Brentford, L.
Stewartby, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Taylor of Warwick, L.
Tenby, V.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tonge, B.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Trenchard, V.
Trimble, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tugendhat, L.
Tyler, L.
Uddin, B.
Ullswater, V.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Walker of Aldringham, L.
Walker of Worcester, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Walton of Detchant, L.
Warnock, B.
Warsi, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Whitaker, B.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Windlesham, L.
Woolf, L.
Young of Hornsey, B.

13 Oct 2008 : Column 544


Adams of Craigielea, B.
Adonis, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Bhattacharyya, L.
Billingham, B.
Bilston, L.
Blood, B.
Bradley, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Browne of Belmont, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Christopher, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cox, B.
Crawley, B.
Darzi of Denham, L.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Dearing, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Drayson, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Filkin, L.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gilbert, L.
Golding, B.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Grocott, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Imbert, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jones, L.
Jordan, L.
Kerr of Kinlochard, L.
Kinnock, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Malloch-Brown, L.
Mandelson, L.
Maxton, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Manchester, L.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Robertson of Port Ellen, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Slynn of Hadley, L.
Smith of Kelvin, L.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Tebbit, L.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
West of Spithead, L.
Whitty, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 22 [Grave exceptional terrorist threat]:

The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): I cannot call Amendment No. 30 because of pre-emption.

[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Clause 22 negatived.

Clause 23 [Power to declare reserve power exercisable]:

13 Oct 2008 : Column 545

The Lord Speaker: I cannot call Amendment No. 31 because of pre-emption.

[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]

Clause 23 negatived.

Lord Tunnicliffe: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Financial Markets

6.52 pm

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg leave to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other place earlier today. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on this morning’s announcement on the implementation of the proposals I announced last week. Again, I hope the House will understand that it was necessary for me to issue a market notice this morning, ahead of the markets opening.

“In my Statement to the House last Wednesday, I outlined the principles of the Government’s proposals to restore confidence in the banking system and put banks on a stronger footing—essential steps in helping the people and businesses of this country—and support the economy as a whole. Since then, there have been intensive discussions with UK banks and institutions. I can today set out to the House how the principles set out last Wednesday are being applied.

“Let me first remind the House of the three key elements of the measures I outlined last week: first, to inject sufficient liquidity into the financial system now; secondly, to make available at least £50 billion of capital, should it be required, to recapitalise the UK banking system; and, thirdly, to provide a guarantee on eligible new debt to support medium-term lending between banks. These measures aim to unblock the inter-bank lending system and strengthen UK institutions, so that banks can start lending to people again. This is necessary, both to stabilise the banking system and to support the wider economy.

“No country alone can solve the global problem. At the weekend, at both the G7 Finance Ministers’ meeting and at the IMF, it was clear that the three elements of last week’s proposals will be essential parts of any global recovery plan. Yesterday, the Prime Minister had discussions with European Union leaders and they too agreed that this was the right way to stabilise and rebuild the banking system.

“Today, many European Union Governments have announced how they plan to support their financial systems. So it is increasingly clear that the measures I am announcing today form the basis of an international consensus on the right response to these events.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page