The other Blair and the row we don't need

The Counter-terrorism Bill is the most contentious item in the government’s legislative programme because the political parties are so deeply divided on the issue of the maximum period terrorist suspects can be detained prior to being charged.

This should not lead us to overlook the other measures that are scheduled to be included in the Bill. The government proposes to allow post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects and where a suspect refuses to answer questions but later relies on something they had an opportunity to mention previously then adverse inferences could be drawn from this.

There is widespread support for this measure, provided it is clearly restricted to terrorism. It could speed up investigation and enable the case to come to trial much earlier. Although, perversely from the government’s perspective, it may undermine the argument for extending the detention period.

There is also likely to be general support for the proposal to give police powers to hold passports and travel documents at ports in cases where individuals are, based on intelligence, suspected of wanting to travel abroad for purposes relating to terrorism.

The government is also planning to introduce the enhanced sentencing measure supported by Lord Carlile, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism, in his report of March 15. The aim would be to ensure that sentences for terrorists convicted of non-terrorist-specific offences are enhanced to reflect the additional seriousness of involvement in terrorism. The proposal to introduce notification requirements similar to those for sex offenders once convicted terrorists leave prison is also likely to gain wide support.

The issue of the maximum period of detention of terrorist suspects prior to being charged is a particularly difficult one for the government. The prime minister has gone on record, in a speech in Newcastle, stating: ‘At no point will our British traditions of supporting and defending civil liberties be put at risk’.

On the other hand, he has made it clear that he favours extending the maximum period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects from the present 28 days to 58 days, a far longer period than is allowed by any other EU country and probably in contravention of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, now part of the UK’s domestic law in the Human Rights Act.

In debating this matter, legislators will be aware that there is a powerful human rights argument for taking a firm line against terrorism: terrorism violates the most basic of all human rights of the citizens, the right to life. However, it is vital for our democracy to maintain a proper balance between civil liberty and security. If we sacrifice fundamental civil liberties in the name of security we are doing the terrorists’ work for them.

The government’s arguments for extending the maximum period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects repeat those used in the 2005 debate on the 90-day proposal.

Ministers argue that current and emerging conspiracies are so complex and trans-national in character that in at least some cases the police will need more time to carry out their investigations. For example, suspects often use multiple identities and may be linked with collaborators in other countries. It may be necessary to examine the hard discs of numerous computers, some involving encryption.

Information may be needed from a wide range of police and other security agencies. Translators and interpreters may be needed. Ministers stress that extensions beyond the 28-day limit will probably only be needed in a small number of cases. Sir Ian Blair has argued before a select committee that although it has not been necessary to seek permission to go beyond the 28-day limit so far, it is a ‘pragmatic inference’ that it will be required in future.

Opponents argue that there is no evidence that an extension beyond 28 days is necessary, and that if the maximum period is extended it will be viewed as discriminatory by Muslims and could act as a recruiting sergeant for extremism. The recent Liberty report demonstrates how out-of-step with our EU and other democratic allies we would be if we introduced a maximum 58-day period.

The prime minister has made it very clear that he would prefer to obtain a broad consensus of cross-party support for new counter-terrorism measures and that he welcomes consultations with the opposition parties, the police and other interested groups. One approach would be for the government, the opposition parties and members of the judiciary to ‘round-table’ discussions on proposed counter-terrorism measures.

In order to strengthen the criminal justice system they could consider making more use of the offence of acts preparatory to terrorism; although this offence was created in 2005, it is disappointing so little use has been made of it. They could also consider the possible use of intercept evidence.

Paul Wilkinson is Emeritus Professor of International Relations, University of St Andrews.