News

Howard's Way.... a weekly column from the Rt. Hon. Michael Howard QC. MP. 

8 November 2007

By the time you read this the Queen’s Speech will have been delivered.

Her Majesty will have come to the House of Lords and, in a magnificent piece of constitutional theatre, will have given the speech, which is of course written by the Government. Just before the Gracious Speech, as it is known, Black Rod will have knocked three times on the closed doors of the House of Commons to summon us to the Lords Chamber.

This event marks the beginning of the new session of Parliament which will last until next Autumn. The Queen’s Speech sets out the Government’s legislation programme for that session.

One of the most contentious measures is likely to be the Government’s new Anti-Terrorism Bill. It is widely expected that, as part of this Bill, the Government will once again try to increase the amount of time for which terrorist suspects can be held without charge from the existing limit of 28 days.

The last time they tried to do this they suffered their only parliamentary defeat since 1997. I was still Leader of the Opposition at the time and I asked for evidence that the existing 28 day limit had been inadequate, in any single case of suspected terrorism, for the police to pursue their investigations. None was forthcoming. That was why we opposed the Government’s proposal.

I do not think anyone can seriously accuse me of being ‘soft on terror.’ After all I was Home Secretary during a time when we suffered some of the worst outrages of Irish terrorism. But to detain someone without charge for 90 days, which was what the Government were trying to do, would be to give them the equivalent of a 6 month prison sentence, only half of which would actually be served in custody. And this without sufficient evidence even to charge, far less prosecute or convict, that person with any offence.

Such a drastic infringement of our liberties could only be justified by clear evidence of need. We shall have to see whether that evidence, which did not exist during our previous debates on this subject, can now be provided.

But there are other steps which can be taken which I fully support.

One is to allow suspects to continue to be questioned after they’ve been charged with committing an offence. At present this is not allowed and is one of the main reasons why the step of charging a suspect is sometimes delayed. If questioning is allowed after charge there will be no need or incentive to delay the charge.

The other is that evidence obtained from intercepting telephone conversations should be made admissible in criminal proceedings. At present we are one of the very few countries in the world which does not permit this evidence to be used. I hope to speak during the debate which follows the Queen’s Speech to make the case for a change in the law in this respect.

That should enable more terrorists to be charged, prosecuted and convicted - something we should all support.