The Bill will include new measures to strengthen terrorist prosecutions and deal with terrorists after they have been charged. It will seek to ensure that the police and the intelligence services are given specific data sharing powers, as well as putting the police’s counter-terrorist DNA database on a similar footing to that of the national DNA database. Moreover, the Bill will increase the custodial sentences for convicted terrorists; extend the power available to police to seize terrorist assets and, finally, make it a requirement that convicted terrorists provide police with personnel information upon their release from prison.

This Bill is likely to prompt criticism from human rights campaigners and opposition parties, as the government proposes to introduce two controversial measures; (1) modifying the post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects, and (2) increase the number of days a terrorist suspect can be held in pre-charge detention. Though there were no details on a specific increase, the government has indicated that ministers are “considering options in relation to pre-charge detention in terrorist cases”. On Monday, November 5, the home office minister Tony McNulty said the government would “probably” push for 56 days. In July the prime minister pledged to consult on extending the 28-day limit but insisted “we should not return to the previous [90 day] proposal rejected by the House.”

Home secretary, Jacqui Smith, opened second reading debate on the Counter-Terrorism Bill on April 1 2008.

Opening the debate Smith highlighted the threat terrorism poses to the United Kingdom, she stated terrorists are  “more ruthless” Smith added:

“200 groupings or networks and about 2,000 individuals being monitored by the police and the Security Service in the UK alone.”

Highlighting the various aspects of the Bill, Smith stated the Bill “will allow post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects”, the minister added that will increase the minimum sentences for terrorist related offences.

Smith then set out the case for extending the period that arrested people can be detained without charge beyond the current 28 days. She highlighted the case of Dhiren Barot, where investigators seized “270 computers, 2,000 computer discs and a total of 8,224 exhibits.”

Concluding, Smith called the measures within the Bill, “precautionary, proportionate and necessary”, she added that the police “deserve our support as parliamentarians in providing the tools that they need to pursue, to investigate and to prosecute.

Responding for the Conservative Party, shadow home secretary, David Davis stated that his party would “strive for consensus on security matters”. However, he added:

“However, the proposal to extend detention without charge up to 42 days gives up essential liberties without delivering any additional, even temporary, safety. In fact, it is likely to make us less, not more, safe.”

Davis then outlined the areas where the Conservatives would support the government, he welcomed post-charge questioning and “making terrorism an aggravating factor in sentencing, notification requirements for those convicted of terrorist offences and travel restrictions on those convicted of terrorist offences.”

Raising his concerns with detention without charge, David Davis raised the case of Lotfi Raissi, who was detained prior to deportation to the United States. But was exonerated by the Court of Appeal who found he had “no case to answer”.

Davis said that the case showed the risk from detention without trial, he said:

“The risk of miscarriages of justice, with such devastating and counter-productive consequences, is magnified when we give the police excessive powers, which they will inevitably exercise under conditions of high public, political and media pressure, as will happen after a terrorist event.”

Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary, Chris Huhne stated his party would “fight tooth and nail” against the extension of the period of detention without charge. He added the “secretary of state should not have the right directly to appoint or dismiss a special coroner, and why juries are an essential part of the process of reaching judgments of fact, particularly in cases of death in custody.

Keith Vaz (Lab, Leicester, East) spoke of a “fine judgment that has to be made on the balance between individual liberty and collective security.” He added that “there is now a new world order, with new dangers and a need for new ways to deal with them.”

House of Commons

First reading: January 24 2008 [HC Bill 63]

Second reading: April 1 2008

Counter-Terrorism Bill Committee

• 1st sitting: April 22 2008 (am)
• 2nd sitting: April 22 2008 (pm)
• 3rd sitting: April 24 2008 (am)
• 4th sitting: April 24 2008 (pm)
• 5th sitting: April 29 2008 (am)
• 6th sitting: April 29 2008 (pm)
• 7th sitting: May 6 2008 (am)
• 8th sitting: May 6 2008 (pm)
• 9th sitting: May 8 2008 (am)
• 10th sitting: May 8 2008 (pm)
• 11th sitting: May 13 2008 (am)
• 12th sitting: May 13 2008 (pm)
• 13th sitting: May 15 2008 (am)
• 14th sitting: May 15 2008 (pm)