Kennedy steps up pressure on Prime Minister over anti-terror legislation

2.42.21pm BST (GMT +0100) Wed 12th Oct 2005

At Prime Minister's Questions, Charles Kennedy probed the Prime Minister over his commitment to the proposed 90 day period of detention for terrorist suspects.

Mr Kennedy questioned the Prime Minister about the advice he had received from the Attorney General as to the legality of the proposed extension. Mr Kennedy asked: 'Are the reports that we've read that he remains unpersuaded correct or, is this case going to be another occasion here the Attorney General's internal views go unreported to the public?

Mr Kennedy also reminded the Prime Minister that the proposed legislation will create new offences such as acts preparatory to terrorism which will allow suspects to be charged within the current 14 day limit. 'So in such circumstances, why is it that he remains so wedded to this proposal for 90 days?'

Full transcript of exchange follows.

Charles Kennedy: Mr Speaker, could I obviously associate my honourable and right honourable friends with the expressions that the Prime Minster and the current Leader of the Conservative party quite properly made (interference) about the terrible events that have happened as a result of the earthquake. Could I say that the statement that the secretary of state made to the House when we reconvened was one that was very warmly welcomed and we pay tribute to the work that he and his officials are doing in these most difficult circumstances.

Now returning to the Prime Minister's present legislative proposals which involve imprisonment without charge for 90 days, Mr Speaker. It seems to be absolutely clear that there is no consensus within the government on this measure. Could I ask the Prime Minister what exactly is the view of the Attorney General where this measure is concerned? Are the reports that we've read that he remains unpersuaded correct or, is this case going to be another occasion here the Attorney General's internal views go unreported to the public?

Prime Minister: (Interference,) Quite explicitly reported at least. But I have to say to him, look, there will be different issues on this view in political parties and across this house. What I've got to try to do, and I'm going to try to do it in the spirit of, if we can, reaching a consensus on it, is to take the proposals that have been made by the police and lay them out before people and then let us have a debate about whether they're a sensible way to proceed or not. I have to say that I, for the reasons that the police have given have found their requests for this power absolutely compelling. And what I have to do, obviously, to try to do my best to protect people in this country and to make sure that their safety and their civil liberties to life come first and that's what I'm going to try to do.

Charles Kennedy: If the Prime Minister is serious about looking at sensible alternatives surely he should look at the rest of his proposed legislation because the anti-terrorism bill as published will create serious new offences, offences that we have argued for as well as the government are now supporting, acts preparatory to terrorism. Now that will enable suspects to be detained for the existing 14 days, so in such circumstances, why is it that he remains so wedded to this proposal for 90 days? Surely it's wrong, surely it's going to have to back down?

Prime Minister: The reason I remain wedded to it is that the people who are in charge of fighting terrorism in this country and in particular the senior police officer who is in charge of this, says for reasons, that I have to say personally I find absolutely compelling that it is necessary to have this power in order to protect the public. So, it's not a matter of mystery as to why we are putting this forward, this was originally put forward by the Association of Police Chief Officers, it is now being backed up by the chief police officer who is in charge of fighting terrorism in this country. He set out his views with examples in a memorandum with examples last week, I have to say I find that compelling, now let us have a debate about the strength or otherwise of those proposals but for myself, I find it a convincing case. And the reason for that, that he gives is very clear as well; that the particular nature of this type of terrorism means that very often the police will have to arrest people relatively early in the conspiracy to cause terrorist offences in this country, and therefore they need a longer period of detention in order to get the evidence necessary to charge them properly. Now that's the reason that the police have given, I think rather than you know, allegations of whether we're backing down or standing firm, we should actually debate the substance of those proposals. It's consistent with I hope what is an understanding right round this house in the aftermath of July 7th when over 50 people lost their lives in a terrorist attack consistent with our obligation to do our level best to protect the citizens of this country.