Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It is unlikely that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and I agree on anything, except what we are now debating. We certainly see eye to eye on this question and have done for a considerable time.

The figure of 28 days was not picked out of the air in November 2005, when the maximum period was 14 days and 90 days was proposed. It should be remembered that, in July that year, there had been a massacre—there is no other way to describe it—of 52 innocent people, with others seriously injured. A fortnight later, on 21 July 2005, there was another attempted atrocity. That was the situation that faced the House of Commons when we were debating the issue in November that year. Given those circumstances and the fact that the Government—wrongly in my view—wanted to increase the 14 days to 90 days, it is understandable that the House agreed to 28 days.

As far as I know, no one actually suggested that the 14 days should stay. There was no vote on whether 14 days should remain the status quo. There was more or less agreement—apart from in the Government and among those who supported the Government at the time—that the number of days of pre-charge detention should be doubled from 14 to 28 days. Those were the circumstances in which we debated the issue at the time.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The facts of the situation were that the provision on the face of the Bill was for three months’ detention but at the key stage of the Bill, two amendments were listed. One changed the limit from three months to 90 days and the other changed it to 28 days. Those were the only two options on offer. When the Government’s 90 day amendment was defeated, the 28 day amendment was the only way that anybody had of preventing the limit from staying at three months.

[Mr Winnick]

I do not wish to disagree with my hon. Friend, but what I am saying is that there seemed to be general agreement, given the circumstances of the atrocities that occurred in July 2005, that the limit should be increased. However, I do not particularly want to pursue that further because I am now of the view—I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden—that we should return to 14 days, because I do not really believe that there is any justification for extending the order for another six months. I know the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench but, again, I disagree with them.

We must always bear it in mind that for non-terrorist cases the maximum remains, rightly, only four days—96 hours. No Government, fortunately, has suggested that there should be any change to that whatsoever. Where terrorism is concerned, we are going beyond the four days allowed in non-terrorist cases—that is crucial. Until 2003, the maximum for terror suspects was just seven days. It has continued to increase—to seven days, 14 days and then 28 days. Fortunately, all attempts to increase it beyond 28 days—first to 90 days and then to 42 days—were defeated. The 42 days provision was passed by a majority of nine in the House of Commons but rightly rejected by the Lords.

As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has said, there is of course the added provision now that did not exist in 2005—namely, post-charge questioning of terror suspects. That is an important element. The fact that the provision has not come into force is not a reason not to take it into consideration. Only the Home Secretary or the shadow Home Secretary can explain why it has not come into force. If there is a feeling that 14 days is not sufficient and that the terrorist threat remains acute—I could not agree more on the latter—one would have thought that the provision in the Act on post-charge questioning could be brought into force sooner rather than later.

I am the last person in any way to minimise the continued terrorist threat. I have always worked on the assumption that, as the police said at the time, it was a question of not if but when. The police were proved absolutely right, unfortunately and tragically, by the mass murder in July 2005. Surely no one would now say that the threat does not exist to the same level. I do not know if it is smaller or not, but I do know that if al-Qaeda could carry out the sort of atrocities that it carried out the other day in Uganda, it would do so without the slightest hesitation whatsoever. I mention that to make it absolutely clear that in no way do I argue that the terrorist threat does not exist or is minor—far from it. I am sure that the same applies to other hon. Members.

As far as the 28-day period is concerned, the Home Secretary has confirmed today that no one has been held for longer than 14 days since July 2007, so the provision is not in use. One argument for voting against it today is that we need not keep it if it is not absolutely essential. The Home Secretary is on record as saying that she would prefer a period of 14 days, so if that is the position, why not agree to a 14-day period today? Protecting the public from terror must be one of the highest priorities for all concerned, particularly the security services, the police and the Government of the day. The job of Parliament is to ensure that funding is provided to ensure that the police and security services can do their jobs. Obviously, that is essential, but we have another responsibility to protect, as far as possible, our traditional liberties. That is one of the most essential jobs of Parliament. It is relatively easy to defend civil liberties when there is no terrorist threat, but the real challenge is when there is such a threat, be it from the most obvious sources, or from dissident republicans or whoever.

When there is an acute threat, how do we protect the liberties that are so essential to the tradition of our country? The right of an individual not to be held by the police except for a very short time has become very much a part of the tradition of this country. The right of habeas corpus existed even when civil liberties as such did not, so a person could not be held indefinitely. That is why I feel so strongly about this issue and why I believe that it is not necessary, at this time, to extend the 28-day period. To repeat what I said nearly five years ago, every generation of parliamentarians has the responsibility to make sure that the freedoms and the civil liberties that we inherit from our predecessors should be passed on to our successors. That is important and it is why I have always been very wary of giving the police and the security authorities more power than is absolutely essential.

The Home Secretary said that there was a whipped vote for Labour Members on this issue at the time, and there was, not surprisingly—one would not expect otherwise. However, some of us broke the Whip because we decided that the matter was so important that we should vote against the Government, who were duly defeated. Without being patronising, let me ask Conservative and, perhaps, Liberal Democrat Members something: even if they are whipped today, do they really believe that it is absolutely essential to renew this order? If they do, they will vote with the Government, obviously but if they do not, I hope that they will do what so many Labour Members did in November 2005.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) treated us to a medley of his greatest hits from previous debates, and the shadow Home Secretary performed his cover version of some of his arguments. However, let us remember that the main issues in previous debates were the threshold test, post-charge questioning and intercept evidence. It is important, in the context of the review and any decisions taken in six months if the order is passed today, that the House fully and properly understands those issues.

We were told earlier that a senior person who dealt with counter-terrorism was not aware of the threshold test. Although it was not mentioned in the Home Secretary’s announcement yesterday, I imagine that she is taking six months to conduct a review because she wants to roll the pitch on several issues so that, when the debate takes place, Opposition Front Benchers cannot accuse her of a knee-jerk reaction to the Lib Dem manifesto and she can show that any change has been on the basis of thorough review. I understand the tactic. However, I will vote against the order because I never believed on principle in 28-day detention. Like others, I found myself taken hostage and having to vote for 28 days because it was the only way to stop three months’ detention.

Let us also remember that counter-terrorism measures can be—some have proved to be—counter-productive. Not only internment, but a host of counter-terrorism measures were counter-productive in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionist party advocated and cheerled many of them, which ended up assisting the terrorists, partly by alienating the community from the police and making the job of community policing hard and even impossible.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No, because the Home Secretary needs time to wind up the debate.

In the previous debate, we were told about the comments of chief constables. I do not know the collective noun for chief constables, but they were all lined up in support of 28 days. I assume that it will take six months to sort out their line and get them on a different course. However, I recall among the good contributions in previous debates about 28-day detention those of the now Attorney-General. He clearly signalled before the election his opposition to 28 days and said that the policy would be reviewed. It is therefore not true that only the Liberals made such a proposal.

As Opposition Front Benchers discover that they need to change their position on immigration, I appeal to them to wake up to civil liberties.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I suspect that my distaste for 28 days is shared by many, on both sides of the House. The question is how best to get rid of it and how best to ensure that in doing so, we have covered the contingencies so that we are seen to have acted responsibly. In that way, the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deserves support.

[Mark Durkan]

We hear what the Attorney-General says. He indicates that the motion is about positioning and lining things up.

Again, whoever is elected Leader of the Opposition to present a new, improved and restored Labour party next year must say that the party has gone back to its better instincts on civil liberties.