Chris Huhne speaks for the Liberal Democrats at second reading debate on the Counter-Terrorism Bill

The Counter-Terrorism Bill passed its second reading with all party support, but the Liberal Democrats made it clear that they would seek to delete the proposed extension of the period of detention without charge from 28 days to 42 during the Bill’s passage.

Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, said that the Bill contained some good things. However, the proposed extension of the period of detention without charge would be counter productive, abandoning historical safeguards against the abuse of state power and alienating communities whose support is necessary to fight terrorism.

Mr Huhne said the Liberal Democrats supported some of the proposals in the Bill:

“The good things include the use of intercept evidence in limited cases - in our view, too limited - and the ability to question people after charge, again in a limited and incipient form. Those are innovations with the potential to help substantially the attack on terrorism, particularly if combined with the benefits of greater flexibility in the decision to charge already being exercised by the Director of Public Prosecutions, as we have heard. It is the innovations in law, together with the innovations in practice through the variation in the test applied by the DPP, which make the bad elements of the Bill both redundant and harder to understand.”

On the length on detention without charge, Mr Huhne said:

“It is already possible for someone to be held for four weeks without their knowing what they are charged with or being able to prepare any defence. To extend that to six weeks - a 50 per cent. increase - is deeply intrusive into hard-won civil liberties. Anyone present could, as a result of mistaken identity - there are many such cases on record - be held for six weeks in such a way. Any innocent citizen going about their normal life could be subject to a police and security services mistake.”

On other countries’ reaction to terrorism, Mr Huhne said:

“Curiously, even though other countries are faced with similar threats, none of those whose system of law is most directly comparable with ours has chosen to extend the period of detention to anything like the current 28 days, let alone 42. It is true that Canada alone clings to the traditional habeas corpus, with a period of detention without charge of just one day - due, no doubt, to the influence of our sister party over many years.”

“Are all these countries that are so comparable to our own country in their legal traditions all so wrong? Are the threats that we face so unique that they require us to abandon our historical safeguards against the abuse of state power? The Liberal Democrats are not persuaded.

“Moreover, there is a real risk that these provisions will prove to be wholly counter-productive in the prosecution of terror. Effective policing always requires the co-operation of the policed, without which intelligence is almost impossible to glean. Where will the willing informers be if the British state is seen to have declared war on a minority community? Prosecution requires witnesses to give evidence, but will the witnesses be forthcoming if their families and friends feel that they are aiding and abetting a state that is using disproportionate and discriminatory powers?”

On the terrorist threat to Britain, Chris Huhne said:

 “The Liberal Democrats accept that our society faces a serious threat from al-Qaeda and from terrorism. In certain respects, the threat is greater than it was during the long fight against republican terrorism. These terrorists are not afraid to die, they do not give warnings and they want to cause mass casualties. We do not deny the need to reinforce our defences against such a threat or to ensure that we have the legislative powers to deal with it. However, the argument is a debate about means, not ends. The means that the Government have proposed are not proportionate to the threat and are not grounded in the reality of the response from many ethnic minority communities. They run a terrible risk of being counter-productive.”

He concluded:

“Some elements of the Bill are struggling to emerge as an alternative approach to the prosecution of terrorists: the use of intercept evidence and post-charge questioning. There is emerging consensus on an approach that does not play the numbers game with the days of detention but would implement practical measures that are consistent with our traditions. We will not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because we aim to nurture that approach and to delete the destructive positions for increased detention without charge that could in our view prove injurious to civil liberties and the successful prosecution of terrorism.”

Click here to read Chris Huhne’s speech and responses in full
The Bill went through its second reading unopposed