Surprise announcement
Late last night the call went out that the home secretary was finally going to produce her for extending detention without trial. This surprised and irritated Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who'd been expecting his report to appear first. A leaked draft report circulated last night in which the committee suggested that there was not yet evidence for an extension. Could the events be connected? Who knows.
What is clear is that the surprise announcement has destroyed an energetic behind-the-scenes operation to woo , the director of the civil liberties campaign group Liberty. This morning she accused ministers of abandoning attempts to build a consensus on the issue. She argued that there had been "a unique opportunity to end the arms race on terror laws".
Chakrabarti's role in this debate is crucial. It was she who pointed out a few months ago that the government's own civil contingency bill allowed detention without trial to be extended beyond 28 days for a further 30 if a state of emergency were declared. This was proof she, and later the Tories and Lib Dems, said that the powers were there if more than 28 days were ever needed. Ministers replied that to declare an emergency would be a gift to terrorists so they sought to achieve the same thing in new legislation without having to declare a state of emergency. That's where the talk of 58 days came (28 plus 30) which I reported a couple of weeks ago.
When that failed to woo the opposition, Jacqui Smith came up with the figure of 42 days. I've not yet heard the case for that figure as opposed to the previously mooted 90, 58 and 56 days. I suspect it's the whips鈥 best guess of what they might be low enough to minimise a Labour rebellion and get it through the Commons.
Another reason ministers may have rushed this out is - rather like with the speeded up announcements of and - to change the subject from party funding. The Guardian's today makes that tricky. It alleges that Labour Party officials helped draw up legal documents to allow David Abrahams to make secret donations exploiting what they regarded as a loophole in the law. So much for suggestions that only Peter Watt, Labour's general secretary who resigned was forced out, was to blame.
UPDATE, 02:40PM: Whitehall's finest insist that there has been no speeding up of recent government announcements. They've caught some of those involved on the hop and they've surprised specialist journalists trying to prepare coverage of them but, apparently, this is not because they were speeded up. Curious.
I'm 
Comments
I have long held the belief that Shami C. was the most eloquent speaker that the 大象传媒 dragged into their studios on a regular basis.
Her stance on any individual issue was not always in agreement with my own, but she was certainly clear and concise, allowing me to focus on exactly where my disagreement might be.
In more recent times I have found that she and I varied less and less, especially when it came to the non-stop production line of government law making, seemingly for the sake of it, since few existing laws are upheld by the forces charged with doing so.
As to your last referencing of the cash-for-anything-going saga, it seems that the Government have now got themselves off the hook with this one, due to the intervention of a police investigation.
Almost a self-declaration of Arguido, it appears!!
The last time Shami Chakrabarti came on my radar was when she got in a big huff over the governments new position on the Human Rights Act. Speaking as one of those rare beasts who's actually read, digested, and understood the thing she looked seriously out of step with the government, law, and reality on the ground.
The government is quite correct to reserve a state of emergency for a genuinely critical situation which renders Mrs. Chakrabarti's latest wheeze as more delusional and wishful thinking. Her qualification as a Barrister and public performances in favour of the oppressed fall on the saw of utility and relevance to the real world.
As a government minister, I trust Jacqui Smith is informed of both the facts and opinion from other stakeholders, and as minister she is expected to make credible decisions in a timely fashion. 42 days could be too high or too low depending on circumstances - an unknown unknown. It looks like a useful short-term fudge. Not ideal but workable.
I expect, the government just doesn't like timewasters.
I think, Nick, that us 'plebs' out here are getting almost as good as you political analysts at spotting when the government is trying to change the subject..!
Clearly this is a diversionary tactic - the government has lost a vote on this once - is this not a case of 'keeping on' about something until they get the result they want..?
Why now indeed..? Is it a case of 'announcement overload' to disguise - not only dodgy party funding, but all the other matters which have dogged Gordon Brown since he became PM..? I notice, for instance, that the assurances that the missing HMRC disks were 'still on the premises' seem to have evaporated (along with the disks themselves) - are we supposed not to notice..?
Back to the matter in question - 42 days does seem to be a case of 'think of a number beween 28 and 52'... Is it sheer coincidence, I wonder, that in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything was....42..??
The answer to how this number has been plucked out by our wavering wrist's mob is clearly based on his vision which is now revealed as being science fiction.
We all know the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.
Job done.
On the issue of terror detention, it would be playing into the hands of terrorists to extend the limit and sacrifice our civil liberties.
After 9/11 we were told that we would not allow the terrorists to change our way of life but it seems as though we're letting them do just that.
On Peter Watt - The Leader has already made it quite clear he asked him to resign, and quite right too.
I was beginning to doubt Mr. Brown's premiership but I now think that he is genuinely trying to clean up the culture of complaceny that appears to have developed in Labour. Though I have to say I don't think it's Tony Blair that has fuelled this but just a general slackness in a few officials. As Mr. Brown has said, he is trying to sort it out. Labour is certainly nothing like the Conservative Party.
On Nick Robinson, I have to say I'm glad to see his bloggers block has passed.
"...to change the subject from party funding..."
I seriously hope NOT.
This incompetent government are simply digging a bigger hole for themselves!
Everybody sees it at the spin that it is!
We should always ask ourselves which is the appropriate (political in this case) level to decide upon things.
It seems to me that there should be a Europe wide consensus on the proposal for extending detention without trial nad the EU Parliament should come up with a number of days.
Otherwise, why do we bother being a part of Europe if it cannot be coherent on matters such as this?
Either we are European citizens or we are not.
While the argument against the extension of the current 28 day period cites that Britain has the longest period of what could be described as "inactive detention" in Europe, it fails to focus on the inefficiency of the police to obtain and organize evidence within that time period. The question should not be 鈥渨hy do we need longer?鈥 (if indeed we do), but instead 鈥渉ow do they [European police forces] manage to accumulate sufficient evidence for a conviction so rapidly?鈥
Having said that, if 42 days genuinely were needed to gather information (and if a case could be made that in exceptional circumstances this might be possible) about a potential terror suspect in order to secure a conviction, then it would be ludicrous to refuse such a request under the guise of seeking to appear to be conforming to European trends, or even to appease human rights activists.
Peter Campbell is a politics undergraduate at the University of York and Deputy Politics Editor of York student newspaper 鈥淣ouse鈥.
Nick,
David Davis at least has identified the real reason for this proposed increase in terror detention: it is designed to wrongfoot the opposition rather than ensure national security.
If Jackie Smith is serious about national security, why has she backtracked on 90 days? 56 days? If they've chosen 42 days because the whips say it's what the backbenchers will support, then this is more about driving the reform through than protecting the nation. He may have lost on 90 days, but at least Blair did not do half-measures when it came to national security.
The sad thing is Brown will probably win this and people will get to see more of the shamelessness and opportunism from this government, corroding trust further in politics.
Agree with you about Tuesday's debate - all that was missing were the pillories and stocks. The rotting fruit and vegetables were there though.
I'm afraid that I don't find Mr Hardwidge's apparent position - that the Government are very sensible to persuade us to abandon our civil rights peacefully and piecemeal, rather than waiting until an emergency actually exists before removing them all in one go - terribly compelling. Nor do I find myself able to take his assertions that he's in touch with "reality on the ground" at all seriously, especially when combined with an assertion that barristers are somehow not. And his trust in "government ministers" might be charmingly naive, were it not delivered in such condescending tones - not to mention that anyone who uses the term "stakeholder" with neither irony nor Whedon references should be put up against a wall and, er, staked.
Nonetheless, if the government could use some kind of emergency powers to compel Charles "E, that Joe Stalin - strong leader, but a bit soft on civil liberties" Hardwidge to put a sock in it, they might just receive my full support.
Re Comment 2, nobody likes timewasters. But if the police have any kind of clear idea why they are detaining someone, four weeks should be sufficient. Six weeks sounds like a charter for timewasters.
On the subject of party funding, surely its about time individual donations were limited to, say, 拢250. As others have said, the radical downscaling of each party's propaganda machines would lead to less gloss, less spin, and who knows, perhaps engaging with the public rather than consulting focus groups.
I wonder what detention limit they'd like to propose for anyone suspected of accepting illegal political donations?
Is Charles E Hardwige a Government PR man in his day job? The implication of his post (that he and Jacqui Smith know more about human rights than Shami Chakrabarti) is so laughable as to be beyond comedy.
However he is probably right that 42 days is a short term fudge because they know they can't sell 90 days. Nick's comment that "I suspect it's the whips鈥 best guess of what they might be low enough to minimise a Labour rebellion and get it through the Commons" sounds about right to me.
The fact remains that the Government have produced no evidence for extending the detention limit. I fear that the only justification for this proposal is party political.
Am I not seeing this the way the others do . Surely the detention is to obtain sufficient evidence for a charge to be laid - and not a conviction as so many posts have said . A conviction can only come after a trial - unless they are advocating trials in secret . There are many options open to the police to hold someone for investigation under present laws - this is really just the beginning of a terrorist police state.
John Constable (#8) says: "Either we are European citizens or we are not". Hopefully not.
Are you people who are for raising the time police can hold people, for terrorism, sure about this?
Ian Blair said we should not distinguish between crime and terrorism too easily.
In other words the death of Habeus Corpus applies to YOU as well, not just so called terrorists.
All of us should be carefull of what we agree to in these times of great deception.
A government pertaining to be free and democratic should be looking for ways to
reduce the detention limit, not increase it.
On the subject of the timing of announcements etc. the people will simply turn their attention to the slowing economy, Northern Rock, immigration, lost data, crime and the wars.
There is no place to hide for this government.
I am not of big fan of being European, (I think being different is what makes us more interesting to each other), but I tend to agree with John Constable (8) that this detention period should be a European Standard length, preferably the shortest time we can all agree on (should be fun!). The insistance of Labour on longer and longer times does make you wonder if there is some hidden agenda going on.
On the timing, a clumsy and obvious attempt to deploy diversionary tactics, as with the flurry of rhetoric on the need to tighten up the law on funding political parties.
For sheer gall, New Labour take some beating in seeking to divert attention from their officials having broken or subverted exisiting laws by stressing the urgent need to pass some new ones. Pausing only, in the case of the laws on funding,to put up a defence or plea in mitigation that, after all, it was they who passed the laws they broke.
You couldn't make it up.
Obviously we can trust them to frame the new laws without self interest and then to comply with them.
Sadly such strategies are likely to work. Witness your own "So what ?" musings, Nick, re 'what's in it for them?'. The fact that they were prepared to breach the rules (aka break the law) for such apparently small gain surely is a cause for concern, rather than complacency?
Shouldn't this seeming lack of worthwhile motive cause us to be concerned,either, that there must be more to it than we yet know, or, if not, to wonder to what lengths they would be prepared to go for bigger gain if they are willing to breach the law for negligble or zero gain ?
What a shower.
I am not of big fan of being European, (I think being different is what makes us more interesting to each other), but I tend to agree with John Constable (8) that this detention period should be a European Standard length, preferably the shortest time we can all agree on (should be fun!). The insistance of Labour on longer and longer times does make you wonder if there is some hidden agenda going on.
A quick question Nick (or any commenter who knows the answer)
How is extending the limit to 42 days party political?
Surely neither party really wants to be stuck with that particular loss of civil liberties?
Considering we have had spin and details of announcements days before they occur for the last 10 years, it seems slightly strange that this is being brought forward now. All I know is that the former Attorney General did not see the case for extending beyond 28 days, there has been no evidence it is required and that if we are to do this then we are playing into the hands of the terrorists. All I do know is that the police have said it would be handy. They could also say it would be handy to use snipers to take out speeding drivers but then that would do away with a few of their own!
If you ever wanted any more proof of the cynical nature of this Government, this is it. They will stop at nothing to "look tough" to appeal to the right-wing tabloids, however many principles and fundamental freedoms are undermined in the process.
It is obviously completely political but we should expect nothing less - the only difference with the Blair regime is that they are less PR savvy and their ability to tap into the right-wing views of the press has not been so effective. However, it is still there as evidenced by this latest ploy.
When even the leader of the Conservative Party seems liberal in comparison, you know that there is something seriously wrong with liberal politics in this country.
@ no 2 "I expect, the government just doesn't like timewasters."
Why does it keep promoting them then?
The only people in this country who should be locked up without trail are the Labour ministers and the fools who would still gladly vote for them.
From all his postings on this blog, it seems that Mr Charles E Hardwidge would support any and all of Mr Bean's government's policies, even if they included smiting of the first born.
Ms Smith may find a few more Police officers knocking on her font door after her disgraceful handling of this years pay award.
The Hone Secretary expects the police to do more and more, including policing their ludicrous, politically inspired legislation and then has the temerity to renege on the pay deal from arbitration. She should resign immediately and take her less than wholesome colleagues with her. Hooray for the principled decision of the SNP Govt. in Scotland re the police pay decision.
Now that we have the prospect of "Titan" prisons being built like fortresses across the country, would it not be easier to imprison the entire population of Britain indefinitely and only let those out who can prove their innocence?
The sheer idea of Labour trying to woo Shami Chakrabarti is absolutely ludicrous. When I asked Ms Chakrabarti "How long should the government be allowed to hold us for", she replied (inter alia) "definitely no more than 28 days." Given an answer so straight, why would she consider 42?
"I fear that the only justification for this proposal is party political. " said John K.
Of course! The government is only proposing unpopular legislation in order to court popularity! Why didn't I see that?
Surely Chakrabarti (and her unnatural allies on the official opposition benches) have given the game away by accepting that a situation might well arise where a suspect might have to be detained for more than 28 days. The only option they propose to deal with this eventuality is surely much worse than that suggested by the government, with all its judicial checks. The best argument against the government's proposal to have legislation in place 'in case' is the potential negative impact on muslim opinion, and there is clearly a balance to be struck. But striking difficult balances between conflicting positions is what we pay government to do.
The 'no evidence so far' argument reminds me of the old joke about the man who fell off the Empire State Building, who was heard to shout half way down "So far so good!".
I believe that anti-terror laws were used against Brian Haw (the Parliament protestor), the two Menwith Hill Grannies and the Brighton pensioner who heckled one of labours finest.
Given that this government therefore, has 'previous' in the mis-use of law, giving them extra powers, is about as sensible as giving an arsonist a box of matches.
The Government is definitely trying to change the subject here.
But anything that knocks Keith Vaz has my vote!
But if they cannot find evidence within 28 days, why was that person arrested in the first place?
After I wrote to my MP about the Human Rights Act, I was a little surprised when Tony Blair refocused the governments Human Rights Act guidelines by clarifying the right of people not to be abused and that a criminal鈥檚 similar rights were no defence. As an example, nuisance neighbours cause misery to many, yet, when being dealt with their criminal position is protected. In effect, the Human Rights Act became a criminals charter. While it鈥檚 taking time to get traction it has support within local authorities and communities from people who just want to fix problems and get along.
Peter Campbell raises an interesting point about the limit. There鈥檚 going to be differences in law and communities so the issue is a question of problems versus solutions, not a raw number. I鈥檇 be really interested to hear a presentation which laid this out clearly. The problem is the shifting background picture and need to make a decision in a timely fashion. I don鈥檛 think this has been communicated very well and Jacqui Smith鈥檚 decision helps route around that. As understanding and communication improves I wouldn鈥檛 be surprised if this issue is revisited.
People seem obsessed with who is right and wrong, or getting perfection today. The fact is, all perspectives can be a little hazy and things take time. There鈥檚 plenty of books on psychology and communication which deal with this but Broken Britain doesn鈥檛 do confidence or society very well. This particular issue was turning into a mountain of clutter and emoting but by taking a rough cut at the problem and allowing a break it allows minds to freshen and tempers to cool. This is no mere whitewash but a master painter stepping back to comprehend their work.
Abbess Zenkei Blanche Hartman in her essay on 'Zen Mind, Beginners Mind': "So please, cultivate your beginner's mind. Be willing to not be an expert. Be willing to not know. Not knowing is nearest. Not knowing is most intimate. Fayan was going on pilgrimage. Dizang said, "Where are you going?" Fayan said, "Around on pilgrimage." Dizang said, "What is the purpose of pilgrimage?" Fayan said: "I don't know." Dizang said, "Not knowing is most intimate."" Unknown unknowns and stuff happens. Who'd of thunk it. An enlightened government. Praise be!
I would love to know what sort of arcane information the government is privy to, that it has lit such a fire under them feel the need to extend detention time. Either there is a real-and-present danger, or the issue just become somewhat of hobby-horse.
I respect Chakrabarti's basic beliefs, but I think that she's just as guilty of fetish politics as the government is. I mean, her title is the "DIRECTOR OF LIBERTY" - ironic to say the least.
I cannot understand how the government can waste so much time and taxpayers money on this issue. If there was a British 9/11 or similar there would be plenty of evidence for the police and a surplus of will amongst legislators to bring the terrorists to court.
The only reason I can see for an extension beyong 28 days is that the government don't trust our security services to get their act together.
There are far more important issues like child poverty in the UK, the rail network, roads, education and immigration that would benefit greatly from government time and effort spent on them. Instead they seem to be blustering about trying to convince us lesser mortals that they know better than us.
We didn't elect them to do this. We want to see them get on with their job of trying to make this country a better place for us all to live in and stop wasting their time over some stupid legislation that is completely unecessary.
Blair completely ignored child poverty because it wasn't very cool to spend time and effort on it. Brown would do well to understand that we, the people want to see him do better over issues like this that we care about or he will suffer the ignomy of unemployment as soon as we are able to get rid of him.
The following lyrics to me sum up this whole debate...terrorism is here but it's the government who wants to destroy our freedoms. The MI5 and the Labour party are more fanatical than any muslim I know.
////////////////////////
What's wrong with the world,
People livin' like they ain't got no mamas
I think the whole world addicted to the drama
Only attracted to things that'll bring you trauma
Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin'
In the USA, the big CIA
The Bloods and The Crips and the KKK
But if you only have love for your own race
Then you only leave space to discriminate
And to discriminate only generates hate
And when you hate then you're bound to get irate, yeah
Badness is what you demonstrate.
///////////////////////
If, God forbid, there were a major terror strike in Britain, all parties would fall over each other to pass emergency legislation to extend detention without trial for as long as was thought necessary. So, why is the Government so determined to make itself a hostage to fortune by pressing on with this unwinnable fight? Is it just pig-headed stupidity or is there another agenda here ? I only ask because the "Home Office not fit for purpose" claims seem to have died a death recently.
Well now we know why it was rushed out. Murdoch is shaking up his empire and Les Hinton is moving to the US. Brown's "secret weapon" was that he hired Kath Raymond, Hinton's Partner, into Number 10 so that he'd have a hot line to the top of News International. Not for much longer it seems, but long enough to get today's fawning editorial in the Sun. Pathetic really.
Hardwidge? Hardly, it's unlikely they'd employ anyone as obvious as him, he's just not venal enough. More to the point, why do they bother when their lack of accountability is such they might as well rule by dictat, given they already mostly rule by decree.
On Question Time, Baroness Ashton was challenged as to the need to extend the time limit by someone who suggested changing the admissability of telephone tap evidence. She said that this was NOW being examined. This was said by another Minister when the debate about 90 days was on. Do they take us for fools?
Nick,
The point about detention is not whether it is long enough to obtain evidence for a conviction (though enough people have already suggested that if the current term is not long enough, questions ought to be raised about investigation procedures) but how far such a bending of laws and human rights is open to abuse.
Obviously, one would hope that any government should use such powers only on the strictest grounds. Yet how are we to be sure?
There are too many possibilities for misuse, too many opportunities to detain say, anyone whose political views are deemed to be dangerous or even simply inconvenient.
Perhaps the current government would never countenance such abuse (though they blindly followed America into a war over non-existent WMD) but what about a future government? Even if these measures are temporary and then repealed, the precedent is there and so it becomes easier to reinstate such laws.
While there is no suggestion that the current administration is in any way similar, we should remember that totalitarian states always begin by reducing personal freedoms and curtailing human rights. What one state puts in place can be continued and intensified by another, more morally flexible holder of power.
Laws should protect us, not only from outside threats, but also from the misuse of power within our own country. Let us not go down the route the Americans have followed, with endless detention for anyone who might be an "enemy combatant", or martial law, which can be imposed at any time.
Human rights are not negotiable according to circumstance.
Let's be honest here, this is a spoon-fed, non-story rushed out by the Labour Party to try and move the headlines away from the illegal donations story.
Nick,
By giving this non-story anything more than a cursory glance you're assisting in the obfuscation of a genuine story.
Just a political diversion; they have no idea what to do about the things people really care about - falling education standards, for example.
Although I don't think the change has been overnight. I do find it telling that when the goverment suggests increasing the time they can hold people before charging them, I find the idea they are trying to make the UK safer the least plausible.
Much more like are that they are trying to show how Gordon can do what Tony couldn't, to take attention away from their dodgy funding and data loss and to show they are 'tough on crime/terrorism' and the Tories and Lib Dems aren't.
A few earlier posters are absolutely correct, 28 days is plenty of time to investigate a serious crime. The reasons given (such as encryption) for needing more time are laughable at best, dishonest at worst.
Personally, if the police have in their custody someone they believe was integral to a major terrorist plot I want the case dealt with quickly enough they might actually catch the people they are linked with. If I was a terrorist and one of my contacts was arrested I'd be out of the country in days not months.
The UK government declared a state of emergency in late 2001 as part of its derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights for the anti-terrorism measures being proposed at the time.
That derogation - and presumably therefore the state of emergency - was in force until March 2005.
Declaring a state of emergency is therefore not the extranordinary step that would seem to be suggested above
Agree with 28 and 29, diversion from more serious issues. This is compounded by Nick who got bloggers block at the same time as the huge response from the public following the missing personal information.
I reckon there's a tide just starting to turn, which is the War on Terror as we know it. Bush, of course, has insinuated all his enemies under this umbrella. So Iraq, remarkably, has seen a sustained reduction in violence. The heat has just been turned down on Iran. The British are leaving Iraq as fast as they can. And as for terrorist attacks on US or UK home soil, there aren't any.
In the UK we know what it is to have terrorist attacks, from the IRA in the 70s. We therefore know that this 'war' is phoney. A phoney war can only last so long. We're tired of it in Britain, it's starting to become old hat.
For all these reasons, I don't think they'll get the detention extension through, and it's rejection may come to be seen as the beginning of the end of our War on Terror. And in a sense, the end of Blairism.