On 11 June, MPs voted to approve the Counter Terrorism Bill which is currently going through Parliament. I voted in favour of this Bill, and I would like to explain why I believe that it is both a necessary and proportionate course of action.

Click HERE to jump to Frequently Asked Questions

The Bill allows for an absolute maximum period of detention of a suspect before charge of up to 42 days. However the Bill enshrines in law the very specific circumstances in which this may occur, as well as the numerous approvals and safeguards which must be in place before such action could ever be taken.

Firstly, the power could only be exercised in exceptional and defined circumstances such as in the event of a major terrorist attack or imminent plot where there is a grave and serious threat to British lives or the security of the country. These circumstances are defined in the wording of the Bill.

Secondly, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Constable of Police would have to approve the request. In effect, they would be able to veto the Home Secretary. After this, independent legal advice must be sought to clarify that the extended detention would be necessary in ensuring a successful prosecution. The exceptional nature of the case would also have to be shown to be compliant with the European Court of Human Rights.

Thirdly, the Home Secretary must ask Parliament to approve the measure. If Parliament refused to sanction the extended limit, then the existing limit of 28 days would stand. The government’s legal advice would then be published.

Fourthly, the judiciary must oversee each individual case. A senior judge would be required to review and approve the extended detention every 7 days on an ongoing basis, up to the 42 day limit.

Finally, there will be independent reporting to Parliament, not only on the general use of the power, but on each individual case. Parliament would then have the opportunity to debate the report.

It is only under very exceptional circumstances that we would need to detain someone for 42 days. But we cannot be certain that we will never need these powers, so it is right that we take this precautionary step. We need to legislate now so that we don’t have to react in the future to a rapidly developing plot or the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

Terrorism has become a much more sophisticated business than in the past. Plots now span several continents, with suspects using numerous different names registered in countries which may have unreliable records. In 2001, police investigating the last big IRA plot had to analyse one computer and a handful of floppy disks. The investigation into the 2006 airline bomb plot has had to analyse 400 computers, 8000 disks and more than 25,000 other exhibits. Trawling through such enormous amounts of data, securing the co-operation of other countries, and confirming the identity of suspects now takes much longer. When dangerous plots are unfolding, we cannot afford to wait before we can stop terrorists. We need to give our investigators in the police and the security services the tools they need to keep us safe.

Some people have said, misleadingly, that the UK already has longer pre-trial detention than most other countries. This is not accurate, as our legal concepts are not directly comparable with those in other countries. France, for example, can detain suspects under ‘judicial supervision’ for up to four years before charges are brought. In Greece, suspects can be held for 12 months before being charged. In Norway, it is decided by a judge and can be for an indefinite period. The United States, on the other hand, tends to have a lower threshold for bringing charges, allowing suspects to be held on relatively minor charges while investigations are ongoing. Our legal system is different, and we must make sure that it is not exploited. The BBC has produced a handy comparison here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084762.stm

This is an appropriate and proportionate step in ensuring the balance between liberty and security in this country. I believe that civil liberties are important, and I have listened to those who have voiced objections to these measures. However I have not been convinced that these proposals and their safeguards unjustifiably infringe on civil liberties. I hope that we will never need to use these powers at all. It is the responsibility of government to keep the country safe and prepare for extraordinary circumstances, and I believe it would be irresponsible not to give the police and security services the powers they need.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the government want to do?
We want to legislate to create a reserve power under which suspects may be detained for up to 42 days before charges are brought against them, under certain conditions and subject to approval. This extends the existing limit of 28 days. But the government would not be able to act alone – detaining anyone for more than 48 hours already requires the approval of a judge. In this case, extending detention to the 42 day limit would only be possible with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecution AND the Chief of Police AND the judiciary AND Parliament.

Why do we need to do this?
It is only under very exceptional circumstances that we would ever need to detain someone for 42 days. But we cannot be confident that we will never need these powers, so it is right that we take this precautionary step. We need to legislate now so that we don’t have to react in the future to a rapidly developing plot or the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

But we’ve never had a case before where detaining someone for longer would have been helpful.
That’s perfectly true. And hopefully, we’ll never have to use these powers at all. But we can’t sit on our hands and hope that the future will mirror the past. We have to prepare for the worst so that if it ever happens, we are ready for it. Pointing out that we’ve never needed this power before is not, in my opinion, a valid argument against preparing ourselves for a contingency.

Why might we need to detain someone for so long before bringing charges?
Terrorism has become a much more sophisticated business than it once was. Plots now span several continents, with suspects using numerous different names registered in countries which may have unreliable records. In 2001, police investigating the last big IRA plot had to analyse one computer and a handful of floppy disks. The investigation into the 2006 airline bomb plot has had to analyse 400 computers, 8000 disks and more than 25,000 other exhibits. Trawling through such enormous amounts of data, securing the co-operation of other countries, and confirming the identity of suspects now clearly takes much, much longer.

What are the safeguards?
Firstly, the Home Secretary would have to be satisfied that there is a grave and serious threat to British lives or national security. This is laid down in the wording of the Bill. Secondly, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Constable of police would have to approve the request. In effect, they would be able to veto the Home Secretary. Thirdly, the Home Secretary must ask Parliament to approve the measure. If Parliament refused to sanction the extended limit, then the existing limit of 28 days would remain. The government’s legal advice would have to be published and shown to be ECHR compliant. Fourthly, the judiciary must oversee each case. A senior judge would be required to approve the extended detention every 7 days on an ongoing basis, up to the 42 day limit. Fifthly, there will be independent reporting to Parliament and in public, not just on the general use of the power, but on each individual case. Parliament would then have an opportunity to debate this independent report.

Doesn’t the UK already have some of the longest pre-charge detention?
Comparisons in the media have been misleading. The British legal system is not comparable to that of France, for example, the police can hold a suspect for up to six days, but a judge can authorise extended detention for up to four years while an investigation is ongoing. In the UK, a judge’s authorisation is already required for any detention over 48 hours (and this will not change). In the United States there is a lower threshold for bringing charges, and authorities tend to use the plea-bargain system by which much lesser charges can be used in order to hold suspects while investigations into other charges are ongoing. We believe that lowering the threshold for charges would be a more serious threat to civil liberties. The BBC has produced a handy comparison here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084762.stm

Isn’t holding someone for up to 42 days illegal under the European Court of Human Rights?
No. The Home Secretary has made it clear that the proposals are ECHR compliant. This has been reaffirmed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. This compliance must be reconfirmed as each case for extended detention is requested.

MI5 has said that it has not requested the extended detention.
This is not surprising. In common with all civil service departments, MI5 does not involve itself in political debates. This is especially true of the intelligence services which have a tradition of not speaking publicly. Moreover, as an investigative agency, MI5 does not have any role in sentencing or judicial compliance and therefore it would not be in a position to recommend the length of time for which suspects should be held.