Brown survives Labour revolt on 42-day detention

GORDON Brown last night secured a narrow victory in the battle over 42-day detention of terror suspects, but was left badly wounded by the scale of the Labour back-bench rebellion.

The Prime Minister was forced to seek the support of the nine Democratic Unionist MPs from Northern Ireland to ensure that the key measure in the Counter Terrorism Bill passed through the Commons. Some 36 Labour MPs rebelled, which would have been enough to bring about Mr Brown's first defeat as Prime Minister as it would have wiped out Labour's normal working majority of 65.

There were angry scenes in the Commons as the result was announced, with Liberal Democrats and Conservative MPs shouting at the DUP "you were bought" and "hope the price was right".

Rumours were widespread that Mr Brown had offered the DUP a £200 million concession over water rates, to be spent by the devolved administration it runs with Sinn Fein in the province. But the government insisted the £200 million was a previously agreed windfall from the sale of army bases in Northern Ireland that had been announced last month. Ministers insisted there had been no concessions.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, said the vote marked a "victory of pork- barrel politics over principle", while John McDonnell MP, chairman of the left-leaning Labour Representation Committee, said: "Any attempt to present this as some sort of victory for the government will ring hollow. This is no way to run a government. Securing votes by threats, bribes and personal pleading demeans the role of the Prime Minister."

The government victory means its plans to increase the period terror suspects can be detained without charge from 28 to 42 days was secured by 315 votes to 306. In addition to the DUP, the government was supported by the Tory MP Ann Widdecombe and Bob Spink, the Tory-turned-UKIP MP.

David Davis, the Tory shadow home secretary, said: "We won the argument, the government bought the votes. The measure is likely to be rejected in the House of Lords.

"Amidst widespread reports of vote-buying, the government did not have the Labour support to win – leaving its parliamentary authority in tatters."

In the Commons, Mr Brown looked uneasy as he awaited the vote, fiddling nervously with his cufflinks and staring into space. He had spent days personally phoning rebels in an attempt to win their support. Despite claiming that defeat would not provoke a vote of confidence, his efforts to secure victory showed how important he regarded it to his long-term survival.

Many observers believed the victory had been secured as soon as Ian Paisley, the former DUP leader, led his colleagues into the government's voting lobby. But the scale of the Labour rebellion caught many by surprise.

Michael Martin, the Speaker, was forced to rebuke a Tory MP, Roger Gale, for suggesting that some MPs had failed to vote with their consciences. If the DUP had abstained and the vote had been tied, parliamentary convention would have meant that the Speaker would have voted to preserve the status quo – meaning government defeat.

The bill now passes to the House of Lords, which is likely to reject it – forcing the Commons to vote to overrule the Lords.

Bob Marshall-Andrews, one of the Labour rebels, said: "It was the worst conceivable result. (Mr Brown] won this vote on the back of the Irish vote."

But Willie McCrea, a DUP MP, insisted: "We decided on an issue of principle on national security."

A source close to the Prime Minister admitted that winning by just nine votes was disappointing. But he said it was an acceptable result as there were 55 rebels at one stage. "We fully expected to lose today," he said.

Katy Clark was the only Scottish Labour MP to vote against the government. Other rebels included Diane Abbott, Frank Dobson and Kate Hoey.

Earlier, at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Brown said the proposals were a "matter of necessity" and he would be failing in his duty if he did not try to put them into law.

But David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said there was a danger that the moves could prove counter-productive. "Terrorists want to destroy our freedom," he said. "When we trash our liberties, we do their work for them."

Mr Clegg said the bill had no chance of becoming law as it would be blocked by the House of Lords and was likely to be declared illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

There was also a likely court challenge by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, he said.

Pete Wishart MP, the SNP home affairs spokesman, said: "This is the worst of all outcomes for Gordon Brown. He can no longer rely on his own MPs for a parliamentary majority, but is instead hanging by an Ulster thread."

Mark Lazarowicz, the Labour MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, had grave reservations about the proposal and had considered rebelling, but said: "I was given assurances that they do not expect the powers to be used."

Kate Allen, the Amnesty International UK director, said: "This is a dangerous and disappointing decision. No government minister should have the power to allow police to lock people up for six weeks without charge."

>BULLETS
A bad day for freedom: What it means for civil liberties

Analysis: John Scott

AS A supporter of Raith Rovers, Gordon Brown will know the meaning of the phrase "win ugly". It is more than unfortunate that a similar approach is considered acceptable on matters of principle. In desperate need of a win for political reasons, the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself for sacrificing another part of our liberty in the (now less-mentioned) war on terror.

Without an increase to 90 days' detention, Tony Blair said we would all be less safe. For our government, this is all about random numbers and posturing, not about the right of an innocent person to be treated fairly.

When ministers run around making promises and threats, it is hard to accept assurances that they do so out of principle. When those who seek to persuade do so out by misleading use of partial information, it is impossible to see it as anything other than politics – a prime minister in need of a win.

Opponents were accused of being "soft on terrorism". The government says only "Trust us – it's necessary". But trust must be earned. We cannot afford simply to trust any government when it comes to our liberty.

What is involved in pre-charge detention? The police are not always able to proceed immediately to charge someone. They may require to complete their investigations. However there are time-limits for all such investigations even in minor cases and, whether completed or not, the law says that a person should be charged in order that they understand the allegations against them. Without knowing the charge, a person cannot begin to defend themselves.

It cannot be right that someone should be kept in custody for 42 days without even being told why they are there.

And what happens if the police or security services make a mistake? Think that mistakes couldn't happen? Not after the de Menezes case. Or Lofti Raissi, an Algerian pilot wrongly accused of being involved in 9/11. He was held at Belmarsh for six months to the severe damage of his health.

The increase to 42 days was voted through without evidence to justify it. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that yesterday was a bad day for freedom.

• John Scott is a leading human rights lawyer and chairman of the Howard League for Penal Reform in Scotland.

A Pyrrhic victory: What it means for Prime Minister

Analysis: Gerri Peev

WHAT price victory? About £200 million, apparently. Gordon Brown won the vote, but not thanks to the backing of his party. It was down to the nine DUP MPs, who are rumoured to have secured a multi-million-pound concession from the government.

Last night, 36 Labour MPs rebelled against Mr Brown – just 13 fewer than the number who defied Tony Blair in 2005 on the anti-terrorism issue. Mr Blair lost the vote, while Mr Brown won, but it seemed a hollow victory; the look on Mr Brown's face when the vote was announced said as much.

In any case, the House of Lords has threatened to throw the bill out, and it also faces the threat of legal challenges domestically and in Europe.

Shortly before the DUP's backing was secured, one member of the government involved in a frantic arm-twisting operation told The Scotsman the vote would be lost by "single digits".

Last night, a normally loyal MP asked: " If a prime minister cannot command the respect of his party, how can he win the respect of the country?"

Mr Brown may attempt to use the win as a way to bolster his leadership – by having his bill passed by the Commons, he has avoided any chance of a confidence vote.

But there was an air of desperation leading up to the vote. One MP battling cancer left his sickbed for the first time in months to make the vote. Another who had just been widowed was dragged back to the Commons, while David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, cut short a trip to Israel to return.

A recent ICM poll found a majority of the public backed the idea of locking up terrorist suspects for up to 42 days. But as David Davis, the shadow home secretary, has pointed out, the key to winning support is in the phrasing of the question. If members of the public were asked if they backed the detention without charge of innocent civilians for six weeks, the answer would be "No".

Damningly for Mr Brown, most respondents believe he is weaker on terrorism than the Tories, even though he was the one advocating an extension of detention without charge.

So even when the electorate agrees with the Prime Minister, they do not give him credit for the idea. It is far from the definition of being a winner.

Song explains PM's drive to battle on

A CLASSIC tune by entertainer Sir Harry Lauder may explain Gordon Brown's determination in the face of adversity.

The Prime Minister has told schoolchildren in Dundee that he is a great admirer of the song Keep Right On To The End Of The Road.

He replied to a letter sent by P5 pupils at Sidlaw View Primary who are compiling a book of music hall lyrics for an end-of-term concert next week.

The song's lyrics state: "Tho' you're tired and weary still journey on."

FACT BOX

THE Counter Terrorism Bill aims to update the UK's ability to tackle the threat of terrorist attacks in the face of increasingly complex and global plots. The most controversial proposal is to raise from 28 to 42 days the time suspects can be held without charge.

Another key proposal is to allow police to continue questioning suspects after they have been charged, up to the start of their trial.

The government proposed a series of amendments to the 42-day period in an attempt to win over reluctant back-benchers. The new detention powers would be used only in the face of a "grave, exceptional" threat to the UK. Also, they would have to be approved by Parliament within seven days of being implemented, and they could apply for only 30 days, rather than 60 days as first proposed.