Press Releases
Search for press releasesCounter-terrorism bill second reading
1 April 2008
Statement by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in the House of Commons on 1 April 2008.
I beg to move that the Counter-Terrorism Bill be now read a second time.
Mr Speaker, the primary duty of any government is to secure the safety of all its citizens.
The threat we face from terrorism today is very different in scale and nature from any that we have faced in the past.
It is more ruthless, very often aiming to cause mass civilian casualties, without warning, using suicide attacks and even chemical, biological or radiological weapons.
It is international, drawing upon loosely affiliated networks across the globe that share not only an ideology but also personnel, training and funds.
It is more complex, exploiting new technology to plan and to perpetrate attacks.
And it is of an unprecedented scale, with over 200 groupings or networks and around 2,000 individuals being monitored by the police and Security Service in the UK alone.
This figure is the highest it has been – and represents a new and sustained level of activity by those who wish to kill and maim, and to undermine the values that all of us share in this country.
Mr Speaker, the threat we face is serious and urgent. And as my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister set out in his statement on the National Security Strategy, the new threats we face demand new responses from us.
We have made far reaching changes to our strategy to deal with terrorism, and created the Office of Security and Counter Terrorism within government to co-ordinate our response.
We have significantly increased the resources available to deal with terrorism.
We have redoubled our efforts to prevent violent extremism from taking hold in the first place. Our long-term challenge is to stop people becoming or supporting terrorists.
With new funding to support communities and organisations tackling those who promote violent extremism, we will take on the ideologues, and disrupt their efforts to radicalise individuals at risk in our society.
But, in the short term, we must pursue vigorously those who commit terrorist crimes, and bring them to justice.
Since the beginning of 2007 alone, 58 individuals have been convicted in terrorist cases. Half of those convicted pleaded guilty to their charges.
Police, prosecutors and others involved deserve our thanks for their efforts. But they deserve more.
Just as the threat from terrorism evolves, so our laws must adapt to remain effective. We must ensure that those we ask to deter, investigate and prosecute these most serious of crimes have the tools they need to do the job.
Over the past two years we have comprehensively reviewed our existing legislation, identifying areas where we could do more to deal with the current and emerging threat.
In particular, ensuring that:
- firstly, full use can be made of all information when investigating and prosecuting terrorist crimes; and
- secondly, that we have effective measures in place to deal with terrorist suspects after they have been charged and convicted.
On the first of these, the Bill contains measures:
- to provide the proper statutory framework to retain and use DNA and other forensic material related to terrorism
- to provide statutory gateways for the sharing of information with the security and intelligence agencies; and
- to make sure that all information can be used to defend challenges against asset freezing decisions.
The Bill will allow post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects. Taken together with the other measures in the Bill, this will help the police and prosecutors to ensure more successful terrorism prosecutions.
Post conviction, the Bill will ensure that those found guilty of terrorist related offences receive a sentence that reflects the seriousness of their crimes.
There will be new requirements for convicted terrorists to provide the police with key personal information when they are released from custody – strengthening the arrangements for monitoring terrorist offenders in the community.
From the outset, my approach to this Bill has been to emphasise the importance of consultation and consensus building. We have consulted widely and at length with hon Members, the public, the police, civil liberty organisations, community groups and the judiciary.
Our proposals have been scrutinised by relevant committees here in Parliament and by Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
I believe that many measures in this Bill have already achieved broad support.
Mr Speaker, I want to turn now to the issue of the period of time that police have available to investigate and question a suspect before charge – the period of pre-charge detention.
This is an issue that we know has divided this House before and that has been the subject of the greatest debate around the Bill. Some have questioned why the Government is returning to such a thorny issue.
Quite simply, Mr Speaker, the response of the law cannot remain frozen when the scale and nature of the threat grows.
In particular, senior police officers are clear that the combination of the changing nature of investigations to pre-empt and prevent potential terrorist actions and the scope and complexity of modern day terrorist plots have the potential to impact on the ability to bring charges against terrorist suspects in the time currently available.
Firstly, on investigation. In much police work, investigation necessarily follows the crime. The presence of a victim is the start point. Forensic material from a crime scene and the ability to gather evidence facilitates an investigation – and very often helps to identify a suspect. Upon arrest, only a few days may be needed to question the suspect before a decision is taken on whether to charge them for an offence.
Terrorism is different. Because of the severe consequences of an attack, the police and Security Service need to intervene before a planned crime takes place.
Critically, they may need to intervene at a very early stage in an investigation – before they have had the opportunity to gather admissible evidence, and perhaps with very incomplete intelligence about who is involved.
Mr Speaker, the gravity of the intended crime demands that our police and security forces act as soon as they can.
Few would disagree with the need to pre-empt such attacks.
But counter terrorist investigations are challenging not only for the need to act swiftly and without detailed pre-emptive intelligence.
There is a second challenge: the amount, and the geographical location, of material which the police then seize and through which they may well need to search for evidence to make a charge.
Locating this material from countries overseas – such as Iraq, Afghanistan and even Pakistan – and then combing through it can pose particular challenges.
To understand the growth of this challenge, and how the nature and scale of terrorism has changed, let me make a simple comparison.
In 2001 the police investigated the last major IRA case, in which they had to analyse the content of one computer and a handful of floppy disks. The suspects used their own names and their activities were confined to the Republic of Ireland and the UK.
In 2004 the police and the security services had to investigate Dhiren Barot, the key conspirator in an Al Qaeda operation in this country. This case led to the seizure of some 270 computers, 2000 computer discs and a total of 8224 exhibits.
There were seven co-conspirators and during the investigation police carried out enquiries in the USA, Pakistan, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, France, Spain and Sweden.
In another very recent case, 30 addresses were searched within two hours of the start of the arrest phase of the operation.
400 computers, 8000 computer discs were seized and over 25,000 exhibits. This very recent operation also involved significant international connections.
The trends are very clear. Terrorists, living and working in our society, have learned how to use technology to cover their tracks. They travel and network, sharing experiences and learning from mistakes.
Terrorist plots in this country now almost invariably involve multiple connections to many countries overseas – for the movement of money and people, for command and control, for the sharing of advice and instructions, and for training.
The ferocity and the complexity of today’s terrorist threat means there is a corresponding need for our law enforcement agencies to intervene early and to then find and process what can be very large quantities of seized material.
These factors, and the constant evolution of the threat, are the basis for the view that it may be necessary in future, in exceptional circumstances, for terrorist suspects to be held for more than the current limit of 28 days before charge.
This view is shared by Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
This view has the cross-party support of members of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
And it is a view shared by senior police officers. As Robert Quick, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations and the Chair of the ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters committee set out in his letter to me of 28 March:
“…a pragmatic inference can confidently be drawn from statistical and empirical evidence arising from recent investigations that circumstances could arise in the future which render existing pre-charge detention limits inadequate to ensure a full and expeditious investigation of detained persons.”
A future risk has been identified. There is a consensus about the nature of the risk. The challenge for us as law-makers is how to take the necessary precautions to respond to that risk.
I believe there are three options open to the House:
- one, we could hope that the risk does not materialise – or that if it does, we could rush through emergency legislation
- two, some have argued that we should use the existing provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act if we needed to extend pre-charge detention in such circumstances. I agree with the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Lord Carlile that the Act is not appropriate for these purposes – and probably not even legally capable of fulfilling them. It is certain that the use of the Act would be a draconian response compared to the proposals in this Bill.
However, we have listened carefully to those who have raised this as a possibility, and this brings me to the third option available to us:
- to legislate in a calm and consultative manner on a precautionary basis for provisions that we may find are necessary in the future.
We have looked closely at the principles of the Civil Contingencies Act, as we were asked to do by the Home Affairs Select Committee, and we have translated key elements of the Act into our proposals. These include provisions to limit any extension to pre-charge detention to exceptional circumstances, and strictly limiting how long it is available.
So, following the consultation, we are not now proposing a permanent, automatic or immediate extension to pre-charge detention beyond the current maximum limit of 28 days. We have moved a considerable way from this option.
Firstly, we are proposing a reserve power – not to be used lightly – that would mean that a higher limit could only become available if there was a clear and exceptional operational need, supported by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and approved by the Home Secretary.
Secondly, even if brought into force, the higher limit could only remain available for a strictly limited period of time – up to 60 days, with no possibility of renewal.
Thirdly, as in the Civil Contingencies Act, the bringing into force of the availability of the extended period will be subject to parliamentary approval of both houses. Under our proposals, this would need to happen within 30 days.
Fourthly, whether any individual is held under this power will be a decision for a senior judge, who can approve periods of up to 7 days.
Under our proposals, in normal circumstances, no-one will be able to be held as a terrorist suspect for more that 28 days – as now.
Even in the exceptional circumstances that may trigger the new power becoming available – which we expect to be rare – no-one could be held for more than 42 days at most.
Other than in exceptional circumstances, the pre-charge detention limit will remain exactly as it is now. Indeed, that limit will continue to be subject to annual renewal by Parliament. If not renewed, then the limit would revert to 14 days.
Mr Speaker, in bringing forward these proposals I am seeking to give hon Members the fullest possible opportunity for debate and scrutiny.
The Bill before us is an important one that has already generated considerable interest both in Parliament and outside and there are clearly issues that are of genuine concern to members on all sides of the House.
But from the outset we have tried to take a different approach to this piece of legislation – to be open and consultative and to try and forge consensus where possible.
I hope that approach carries over into the debate this afternoon – that it will be a positive and constructive one which demonstrates the seriousness and diligence with which this House deals with terrorism.
I believe the measures in the Bill are precautionary, proportionate and necessary if we are to have protections in place to deal with the exceptional circumstances which none of us want to see happen, but which all of us have a duty to prepare for, in case they do.
I do not anticipate that even in these circumstances we shall often need to invoke this reserve power. Indeed, it is my sincere hope that we do not need to use these powers.
But in view of the nature and scale of the terrorist threat I have set out today, I would rather have necessary powers on the statute book – there for use if we need them – than face the prospect of terrorist suspects walking free because the police have not been given the time they need to gather evidence and charge them for an offence.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I think all hon Members would agree that international terrorism presents one of the greatest threats to the UK.
In this country we will always respond to terrorism through the rule of law and the criminal justice system. We task our police, our prosecutors and our courts with bringing to justice those who threaten British lives and our way of life through terrorism.
They deserve our support as parliamentarians in providing the tools they need to pursue, to investigate and to prosecute. And they need us to adapt those tools as circumstances change.
I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
