Extended detention
What are the government up to on the great 28 days or more debate?
They believe that their opponents - in the Tories, the Liberal Democrats and the pressure group Liberty - have conceded that there might be circumstances in which it is necessary to detain terror suspects without charge for more than 28 days. That unlikely coalition has pointed to existing emergency powers that allow detention for an additional 30 days.
Ministers believe that to declare a state of emergency would be a huge victory for the terrorists. They are trying to re-shape and sell their proposals as having the same effect, coming with the same safeguards but without the need to declare an emergency.
Thus, they plan to propose that:
鈥 detention beyond 28 days could only be triggered in certain prescribed circumstances
鈥 it would require the specific prior authorisation of the home secretary
鈥 in addition it would require judicial approval every 7 days beyond the original 28
鈥 the home secretary would have to notify Parliament and then report back to them after the end of the extended detention
鈥 the power would be time limited - lasting not years but perhaps just weeks or months
This is in line with - but goes further than - the principles laid out by the prime minister in July when he declared that he wanted to reach a consensus on the issue. Then he spoke of extending up to double the current maximum - i.e. 56 days.
The only significance of the 58 day figure is that ministers claim that their opponents have accepted in principle that there are circumstances in which it could be acceptable to detain for this extended period.
I do not believe that 58 will be the final figure that the government will propose. Indeed I suspect that no figure will be given until ministers are confident that they can secure a parliamentary majority for it.
They hope to move the debate away from the number of days and onto the trigger, the mechanism and the criteria for what they insist will be a reserve power used in rare and special circumstances.
UPDATE 10:45AM: As good an explanation as you will get of why the government feels so outraged by the Tory charge that it is playing politics with terror comes in Steve Richards鈥檚 this morning. It's worth a read.
I'm 
Comments
My concern with this government is that they appear to have a "big-plan" and they intend on implementing it - one way or another.
The process always follows these steps:
1. Create fear.
2. Go in with a sledge-hammer to crack the nut.
2a. Fail to apply sledge-hammer.
3. Go in with a concession
3a. Win concession and wait for an opening.
4. Get the sledge-hammer back out
5. Apply sledge-hammer.
I am 23 and as long and I have been alive this country has faced a 'terrorist'threat. In fact as long as my mother has been alive. 58 days without trial was not considered necessary. It is also of concern when Governments start discussing 'special' sets of circumstances. The Espionage Act was designed to counter enemy spies in the build up to WW1 but was used against innocent protesters decades later.
It is repugnant that just days after we remember those who died for our liberty the Government unveil a policy that strikes at it core.
'NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.'
Please Mr Brown, stop marching to the right.
Why is Mr Brown marching to the right? The Conservative party is seen as being to the right of Labour yet they are saying that it would be only in exceptional circumstances that detention for more than 28 days would be needed.
The danger in passing any law is in its abuse - remember the terrorism act being used to stop demonstrations at the Labour party conference? There is no evidence that the Labour party would not abuse the powers and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
That's a sound comment from Steve Richards, Nick. I've got a lot of time for his careful and considered opinions. He's definitely an asset to the media. On a more personal level, he seems quite respectable and likable. I like his closing on the issue that there was a false consensus but ends with a sharp edge in saying that consensus is now critical. Indeed, I believe consensus is, and I don't think I'm overstating this, one of the top national security issues that parliament, media, and public need to address.
As a contrary and backward looking nation, positive solutions and consensus haven't been our strongest hand. On the domestic and international front we've been teetering on the edge of the abyss, riding on the momentum of industries and people from earlier generations. The signs of possible collapse at all levels are there and I'd rather not live in a failed state. By identifying common goals and working with all stakeholders a better alternative can be developed.
I've learned a lot from the West and East. I admire the Americans sense of purpose and communication skills, and the Japanese sense of quality and society. Like Britain, I screwed up hard but the lessons I've learned from both have helped give me a sense of direction and context. Well, I figure, if better ways can help sort me out then better ways can help sort Britain out, which is why I'm so damn keen on the Prime Minister Brown's agenda.
What is right is more important than who is right.
Surely if they are holding people of suspicion of being terrorists you would like to think they would already have spent some days compiling evidence about the so-called 'terrorist' before they are ever arrested.
The argument that they need more time to collate evidence just doesn't stand up in my books.
I am proud that the British legal system is such that the subject of limited detention - even in the cases of suspected terrorists - is of paramount importance in the securing of our rights. Very unlike on the continent where, as we have seen in the recent murder case in Perugia, [some] authorities can hold a suspect for up to a year.
Of course, should we ratify the wretched EU Treaty then - no matter what Labour politicians say - we'll soon see the ECJ overiding our long esablished legal traditions. Something to bear in mind.
Hold on, Nick. Detention beyond 28 days "...would require the specific prior authorisation of the Home Secretary"? Is that the arrangement that one Gordon Brown - proudly trumpeting his belief in checks on the Executive in some areas - actually favours? Why not courts, sitting if necessary in camera?
Gordon Brown needs to decide - fast in my view - how far his authoritarian streak is going to eclipse his much vaunted openness and respect for constitutional powers. If he REALLY wants the Home Secretary's powers to be further extended without any further accountability requirement beyond a (later)'report back', and denies the courts the right until day 35 of detention to intervene, he's persuaded me that he is by instinct a draconian and a destroyer of individual liberties.
Tories and Lib Dems should try to extract more details on the 'compromise': for example, will courts be given the power by statute to see all the evidence relating to the case for further detention? I am sure both front bench teams will try to extract more detail, but this is a dangerous 'compromise' from so many points of view it should, at first glance, be opposed.
My point is not what the politicians agree on or appear not to agree on to but to ask people to look at the absolute curtailment of civil iberties, intrusion on their right to privacy and proposals for systems that allow the government to collect data on every aspect of your life, not because they need it for delivering services, but almost 'just in case' that has been steadily introduced over the last ten years. If you are OK with that, fine but if you are not then we have to start saying 'enough is enough'
So if detention beyond 28 days would require the consent of the home secetary, is that not really saying that it requires the consent of Gordan Brown. So if the home secertary was leaned upon, it would be Gordan Brown who would have the final say?
Consider how government works.
Speed cameras are introduced to appropriate sites to reduce accidents. good idea. some time later, speed cameras have become a notable revenue source, they are everywhere and their original purpose is all but forgotten.
Detention without charge has already been extended; to allow any further extention without full justification and without all such justification being made public retrospectively and suitable penalty for abuse being in place is surely a failure to appreciate the lesson of speed cameras.
You may not like the example of speed cameras but there are many others. just look around - might I suggest MPs expenses for starters ...
Surely declaring a state of emergency would be entirely consistent with Tony Blair's outrageously scaremongering claim that al-Qaida posed "an existential threat to Western civilization"? Brown did not dispute that statement at the time and has not since.
Am I the only one that find all this very strange, was it just last week that we were condemning Pakistan for their State of Emergency as undemocratic and now we have talk of it over here.
Come on; which planet are our apparent leaders from.
If their is no evidence of them even trying to plan a crime then how can you hold someone in custody.
Where does it stop, could you be arrested for joking about robbing a bank.
While I can understand the difficulty in keeping a suspect beyond 28 days in custody, what if that suspect was released and then went on kill? The police are always in a no-win situation.
But if the Home Secretary has the power to keep someone longer than 28 days, is there any real requrement to change the law?
Consensus, Nick, has long since been found over the circumstances in which an extension might be necessary. It is circumstances under which a state of emergency should be called. In which case, when it is, the extension is 30 days. It is already enshrined in law and is therefore the consensus view of parliament.
There is no evidence that this needs to be changed.
And yet Nick you say 鈥淚 do not believe that 58 will be the final figure that the government will propose.鈥
Quite so. They want 90 days and this is but a step on the way.
(Speaking of steps, nice dance in the ticket hall)
I have read Mr Richards column, but cannot find any reference to a sense of outrage on the part of the government. What on earth are you referring to?
In any event, I cannot believe that there is anyone out there who believes that we need a law passed in order to detain suspects indefinitely, particularly not when the Home Secretary would be involved in the process. We have seen too many occasions where the Home Office is unfit for purpose, and Home Secretaries that have had to step down because they are not up to the job. In the case of the current incumbent, let us not forget that she has offered her full backing to a lame Head of the Met, and failed quite cynically to tell us the truth about failures in the screening of those in the area of security.
I for one do not want to see anyone being locked up on the say so of the police and their boss. Nor do I wish to succumb to this ever more authoritanian stance taken up by an incompetent government supported by an ever more patronising press and media.
For goodness sake, we are not about to see our way of life blown up or taken away from us by terrorists. However, if we sit back and watch, the government may just do the work of the terrorists all on their own.
Speed Cameras = Anti terrorism laws.
You have got to be kidding Douglas.
Something bad is happening within our country that requires a government to ask for such measures.
I would guess that the Great Game is once again being played:
Not only do our intelligence services have to put up with the threat of anarchy from would be bomb makers, they have to deal with Russian intelligence operations within the UK.
So New Labour has started the fourth Afgan war, unsettled the ever xenophobic Russians, and allowed goodness only knows to enter the country alongside economic migrants.
What have we lost and where are we heading?
The government can not demonstrate one single case where more than 28 days has actually been needed. Furthermore they cannot demonstrate a single terrorist attack that would have been prevented by detention without trial. No other government in Europe is demanding anything like this or think it necessary
Not only this but 70s Northern Ireland showed internment fueled terrorism. and this law could well be counterproductive. The vast majority of people locked up under this law will, in fact, be innocent when released after 2 months in jail they will be alienated and more ready to listen to extremists. It will also alienate the muslim community who will be reluctant to cooperate with Police. The person whi will most benefit from this law is therefore Osama Bin Laden who will benefit from more recruits and more secrecy
However the worse is that this country will be less free. If people can be locked up for the equivalent of a 4 month prison sentence on the basis of secret intelligence. How do we know that those locked up are not those who have offended the people in power?
The Government is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
If we are to be completely logical about all this then we could argue that we put in minimum security and live with the consequences. After all you are far more likely to get knocked down by a car than be involved in a terrorist attack.
But of course there is not a Government on earth who could sell that to the electorate.
Any fool can whinge on about the dangers of giving a government the power to detain without charge. The difficulty lies in finding an answer to real world problems such as knowing that somebody is going to mount an attack on the basis of inadmissable evidence or evidence from a source that would be fatally compromised if revealed. For example, somebody in the organisation concerned. In such cases - which may well be common - taking the would-be terrorist out of circulation whilst admissable evidence is sought may be the least worse option. Those not happy with this have to ask themselves whether they would stand by the principle that no matter what evidence is available, if it cannot be put before a court, the public must take its chances. That would be wonderfully consistent, but not, I think, very popular.