"The Level of Risk is Not a Fiction, It's a Reality"

Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C. is a former Liberal Democrat member of parliament and works as a barrister specializing in serious crime, and government and public law. In 2001 he was appointed by the home secretary as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation for the British government.

When the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act was introduced in 2001, was it a considered and proportionate response by the British government post Sept. 11 or was it a knee-jerk reaction to such an extraordinary event as the attacks?

I didn't think it was either. I think legislation was necessary to meet a new set of circumstances. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, I have said on numerous occasions that legislation on this subject introduced in haste rarely lasts and I think this is an illustration of this. The House of Lords ruled that it was not proportionate and I'm perfectly prepared to accept that. I think the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was a more considered response although that has run into difficulties. Events, of course, influence one's thinking on legislation. I think there are very few people now who believe that no legislation of that general kind was necessary.

The ATCSA gave the British government the power to detain a suspect indefinitely without charge and without the detainee having the opportunity of answering the evidence against him. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, did you have any concerns about this power at the time or did you feel that it was entirely justified, given the circumstances.

It was certainly justified to take action against people who could be shown through a judicial process to be involved in international terrorism. In my view, the judicial process was criticized rather unfairly -- probably because it was introduced in a hurry. Unfortunately, there is a class of case in which the material that demonstrates beyond doubt that the person is an international terrorist could not be deployed in a conventional way as evidence before a court. I don't think that anyone sensibly rejects that proposition. The question is: What is the best way of dealing with the situation in which you have people who can be shown to have strong links with international terrorism but cannot be prosecuted in a conventional jury trial?

The Law Lords ruled in December 2004 that the detention of nine terrorism suspects held without charge under the ATCSA was unlawful. How big a blow was that to the government's fight against terrorism?

It's always a blow when the government introduces new legislation, puts it into effect and then it's ruled effectively to be unconstitutional. It's a very rare event. Plainly it was a blow to the government. But the government responded by a new system of control orders, which broadly speaking applies to the same group of people. It's been used very sparingly since and although there have been difficulties in the courts concerning control orders; the rulings of the courts actually have not dealt a fundamental blow to the control orders themselves.

How successful have control orders been in increasing security and lessening the threat?

In my view, having seen the material that I see, control orders have been successful in that they place quite stringent controls -- not as stringent as before, as there was a recent court of appeal ruling that affected it -- but they impose quite stringent controls on a small group of people. As the independent reviewer, I have always said that the government has always accepted that it is desirable for people to be prosecuted wherever possible and indeed there are now a significant number of terrorism prosecutions pending. In my view, there are a number of people who might have been made the subject of control orders who are now being prosecuted for terrorism offenses and the government is therefore taking very seriously the desirability of bringing criminal prosecutions where it's possible.

Despite the legislation introduced since 2001, London was still attacked in July 2005. Do you think this showed that the threat of terrorism could not be stopped through increased legislation or that legislation to that date had not been stringent enough?

No single legislative tool will stop terrorism. There is a significant difference between 9/11 and the terrorism that led to the London plot in that much of the current wave of terrorism appears, albeit in some cases with strong connections with what one might loosely call al Qaeda, to be self-generating and within Britain. And that is a very different target.

It seems that the British government reacts to each new terror threat by bringing in ever tighter regulations and increased security powers. As the threat continues, how far can and, in your opinion, will the government go?

I don't think the government should tighten the law in response to each new terror threat. I think we should have a considered and thought-out view of terrorism laws and that was the view of Charles Clarke when he was home secretary and I take it as the continuing view of John Reid as home secretary. The Home Office announced some time ago now that it is going to introduce a draft bill which will hopefully be turned into a codification and consolidation of counter-terrorism laws. Now that will be a well-considered piece of legislation and I hope it will be good enough to stick for a long time. I think there will have to be some changes in the law. I do not believe that a maximum arrest period of 28 days is enough for the type of complex investigations that are sometimes required. And it may be that current events are an illustration of that.

What effect do you think the increased legislation has had on everyday life in Britain?

There have been changes; obviously air travel, security in public buildings. There have been effects in people's everyday lives. I think people are rightly more watchful. I hope people will be more inclined to contact the police if they are suspicious of people. I think it has also made people more conscious of the need for closer conciliation between religious communities. I think it's made more people quite cynical about religion actually, and the effect that religion can have on people's daily lives if it's not applied and used in a considered way. Religion should never be the instrument of political violence.

Is Britain safer?

No, I don't think it is. Five years ago we did not have indigenous, homegrown terrorism arising from radicalized British people. That's what's happening at the moment and it's a matter of great concern. In my opinion, the most important thing that the new government commission on integration and cohesion can do is understand and address the causes of Islamic fundamentalism within Britain and particularly violent jihad. Until that issue has been bottomed-out and steps have been taken to deal with this in a conciliatory rather than an authoritarian way, then Britain will not be as safe a place to live in as it was before Sept.11, 2001. I think people need to realize that the level of risk is not a fiction, it's a reality.