When the latest Prevention of Terrorism Bill came before Parliament this week it included a new provision that would enable detention without charge for more than 28 days in exceptional circumstances. The Bill of course includes much more than that and at the second reading there was no division , that is to say that all parties allowed the Bill to pass unopposed.

In the next few weeks however we will be looking at the detail and one item of detail which is causing much controversy is the Government's wish to create a power to detain suspects for more than 28 days where in the interest of national security it is thought desirable.

As a principle it is always wrong to lock people up without a very good reason and in all other circumstances 48 hours or exceptionally 7 days is the longest that one can hold a suspect without charge. In the case of terrorism offences that was previously agreed to be too short a period. Complex international investigations sometimes need to be made and therefore it was previously agreed that the period would be 28 days. Now the Government say that sometimes that will not be long enough. There is professional dispute in that the Police tend to want a longer period whereas the Crown Prosecution Service believe that 28 days is probably enough.

The Government's proposal that in the most exceptional circumstances the Police can apply for an extension of up to 42 days but subject to very strict measures.

1.An independent adjudicator must consider whether there is an exceptional reason for applying.
2.Parliament itself must be asked to endorse the decision and that vote shall take place within 30 days (one amendment is that it should take place within 10 days).
3.In any event the Courts will supervise at all stages as to whether the exceptional circumstances provision is met.

Clearly we do not want to encourage unnecessary Police delay in bringing charges where appropriate but I do think that there will be the possibility of cases where a longer period is needed.

I will therefore be voting for the Government proposal not least because at the end of the day I would rather protect my four grandchildren from the risk of a terrorist attack than maybe wrongly hold a suspect whose freedom would be compromised. I know I would rather be locked up for 42 days than risk the life and limb of young children.

I do think there is a case for compensation where suspects are held in circumstances where it is subsequently determined to have been inappropriate but that is a separate issue.

Some say that we will become the most draconian state in Europe but that is not so. In most jurisdictions the investigatory Magistrate system allows Magistrates to carry out investigations whilst the suspect is in custody. Here we have a system of not bringing the matter to Court ie to make a charge until the Police and/or the CPS have sufficient evidence to show reasonable suspicion. That means in most cases the test is much higher for "locking someone up" than in other parts of Europe.

We must however always be vigilant in protecting our freedoms but that also includes the freedom to enjoy our lives and limbs. That's why sometimes we have the difficult task of calculating the balance of convenience.