IT IS the issue that led to Tony Blair's humiliating first defeat in the House of Commons. Now his successor as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, faces a growing rebellion over plans to extend the time terror suspects can be held without charge – from 28 to 42 days.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, faced fresh criticism yesterday after insisting the UK lay under a growing shadow of terrorism. However, the figures she quoted to illustrate the "severe" threat to the nation were first used by the security servi
ces last summer.
Frank Dobson, the former cabinet minister, has warned that opposition to the proposed extension is stronger than ever because no evidence has been produced of a need to go beyond the 28-day limit.
Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions, and former attorney-general Lord Goldsmith are among those opposing the move.
Under the government's proposals, contained in its counter-terrorism bill, the home secretary would be able to extend immediately the detention limit of a suspect from 28 to 42 days, as long as it was supported by a joint report by a chief constable and the director of public prosecutions – or the Lord Advocate in Scottish cases.
The extension would then have to be approved by the Commons and the Lords within 30 days. But if either house voted against it, the power would end at midnight on the day of the debate.
Ms Smith is said to be pinning her hopes on winning over the rebels by promising greater judicial oversight of extended detention.
She said yesterday: "We now face a threat level that is severe. It's not getting any less, it's growing. We can't wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers."
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, said: "The sad truth is that Jacqui Smith has failed to establish that any increase in the period of detention without charge is necessary to combat terrorism."
David Davis, shadow home secretary, said the government's case appeared "less credible by the day" and added that the use of old figures dressed up as new was a sign of "desperation."
However, Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, said he was "absolutely certain" the government would get the policy through the Commons.
Jacqui Smith, Home SecretaryExtend limit? YES
Position: WE NOW face a threat level that is severe. It's not getting any less, it's actually growing. There are 2,000 individuals they are monitoring. There are 200 networks. There are 30 active plots. That has increased over the past two years. Since the beginning of 2007, 57 people have been convicted on terrorist plots. Nearly half of those pleaded guilty so this is not some figment of the imagination; it is a real risk and a real issue we need to respond to. We can't wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers. When we extended the period from 14 to 28 days people said: 'There's no need for this, it's not necessary. You'll never need to use it.' Well, we did. The number of international investigations is greater. Each time a plot is uncovered the terrorists learn and they develop. It takes time to get the evidence you need to charge somebody.
Preference: 42 days
Ken Jones, president of Association of Chief Police OfficersExtend limit? YES
Position: PUBLIC debate has focused around the issue of pre-charge detention.
There is a pressing need to consider now the best way of responding to cases likely to arise where the complexities of gathering evidence mean the current limit of 28 days would prove insufficient.
International links, the necessity to analyse increasing amounts of information, the multiplicity of languages and false identities are all placing unprecedented requirements on investigators seeking to protect the public from terrorist threats.
These proposals address these issues alongside a careful and detailed system of checks and balances. It should also be recognised that these provisions would only be used in exceptional circumstances and in maturing investigations already subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
Preference: Not stated
Shami Chakrabarti, director of LibertyExtend limit? NO
Position: FRIGHTENING headlines are easier to produce than a united national response to them. From phone tap evidence to post-charge questioning, the Home Secretary has been offered a range of options for improving the law instead of suspending it.
The US polices terror with just two days detention without charge. For Britain to take six weeks would be an international embarrassment. How can our government argue that we need to hold people for over a month when so many other countries manage with pre-charge detention periods of less than a week?
Any extension would not only worsen our international reputation on human rights, but could also be used by some states as an excuse to pass their own unjust and over-broad measures.
Preference: Much less than 28 days
Lord Goldsmith, former Attorney-GeneralExtend limit? NO
Position: I HAVE a concern that, if one appears to send out a message, even though it is not the message that is intended, that we are a society that is prepared to lock people up for a significant period of time without charge and then release them after what would be the equivalent of a reasonable sentence, that will damage the struggle to win hearts and minds.
In this particular instance the government has embarked on a course that I think is wrong.
I still hope they see that, ultimately, it doesn't make sense to pursue this.
They will get huge support, from me in particular, for all the other steps they want to take.
Not only is it wrong in principle, it could also be counter-productive.
I could lead to the risk that part of our community sort of sees this as an attack on them.
Preference: 28 days
John Watson, Scottish programme director, Amnesty InternationalExtend limit? NO
Position: THE government should be concentrating on the prosecution of terrorism suspects through fair trials. Prolonged detention without charge or trial undermines fundamental rights that protect us all. In legal terms the principle of habeas corpus (essentially the right to have one's self or body) is a crucial limit to the state's power over the individual. Its roots can be found in the Magna Carta in 1215. In the last century it survived two world wars and a sustained IRA bombing campaign. Now the war on terror threatens to undermine it. This is not to say that everyone detained under counter-terrorism legislation is innocent. Those decisions should be made by judge and jury in a fair trial. As a liberal democracy, one would expect the UK to approach law and order in a way that respects human rights.
Preference: Much less than 28 days
Asma Jahangir, chair of the Human Rights Commission of PakistanExtend limit? NO
Position: DETENTION without charges for a fairly long period of time seriously exposes people to abuse.
Britain has a proud history of promoting democratic norms and upholding human rights. It takes the lead in advancing the cause of human rights. A measure that sees a reverse trend will send a negative signal to the international community.
The worry is that while Britain may make amends, they would have left a poor precedent for dictators to follow on the pretext of fighting terrorism. This downward trend will be detrimental to the rights of individuals and surely Britain would not want to be a part of it. In addition, reports from law enforcement confirm that exceptionally long periods of remand do not improve the quality of investigation but do increase the chances of abuse, victimisation and unfair practices.
Preference: Not stated
Sir Ken Macdonald, Director of Public ProsecutionsExtend limit? NO
Position: IT IS a matter of record that we have not asked for an increase to the 28-day limit.
In our experience it works well and we are satisfied with the position as it stands at the moment. We have had major, major cases that have occurred within that time limit and haven't encountered any difficulties in charging those we have wanted to charge and that's why we have not requested any extension. In the past 18 months we've been building very strong cases, with very good counter-terrorism prosecutors working very well with the police. In many cases defendants don't have anywhere to hide because the case against them has been so strong and so compelling. We prosecute more trials than any other fair-trial jurisdiction in the world – more than America, Australia, Canada or other European countries – and that's why our people have become so expert at it.
Preference: 28 days
Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police commissioner Extend limit? YES
Position: AT SOME stage 28 days is not going to be sufficient, and the worst time to debate whether an extension is needed would be in the aftermath of an atrocity.
The prospect that we need more than 28 days in the not-too-distant future is so real that parliament needs to consider it.
The number of conspiracies... conspirators within those conspiracies and the magnitude of the ambition, in terms of destruction and loss of life, is mounting; has continued to mount and is increasing year by year.
A pragmatic inference can be drawn that at some stage 28 days is not going to be sufficient. If you can see the epidemic moving towards you, you start to take precautions before it arrives.
Preference: Between 50 and 90 days
LAW IN OTHER COUNTRIESTHE current UK terror detention limit is the longest of any comparable democracy, according to studies compiled by human rights organisations.
Britain outstrips the limit in countries that have also suffered al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist attacks in recent years, including the United States, Spain and Turkey.
Maximum periods for pre-charge detention remain as short as 48 hours in the US, five days in Spain and seven and a half days in Turkey.
A spokesman for Amnesty International said: "Is 42 days a reasonable length of time to detain someone on suspicion of terrorism? The United States does not seem to think so – they have a constitutional limit of two days detention with charge, whatever the crime.
"In the UK the limit is already a startling 28 days."
A spokesman for Liberty added: "How can our government and some police argue the UK needs to hold people for more than a month, when other countries manage with pre-charge detention periods of less than a week?"
LABOUR REBELSAN OPINION poll in December found only 36 per cent of Labour MPs backed the extension of detention for terrorist suspects beyond 28 days.
Tony Blair, then the prime minister, suffered his first Commons defeat when 51 Labour MPs rejected his proposal for a 90-day limit in favour of the current 28-day compromise. Gordon Brown could be defeated if 34 Labour MPs rebel, assuming every opposition MP votes No.
Frank Dobson, a former Cabinet minister, warned last week that opposition was stronger now because no evidence had been produced of a need to go beyond the present 28-day limit.
Another leading rebel is Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, who yesterday claimed the government did not have enough support in parliament to carry its plans.
Other back-bench rebels include Chris Mullin, David Winnick, Frank Cook, John Grogan and Andrew Dismore.
But Mr Brown could yet be saved by a handful of Conservative rebels, who are preparing to defy David Cameron by voting in favour of the 42-day limit.
The full article contains 1946 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
