WATCH LIB DEMS...
No to 42 Days
Thu, 04 Sep 2008The Government wants to extend the period for which terrorism suspects can be held without being charged with an offence from the current 28 days to 42 days. The controversial measures were passed through the House of Commons on 11th June. The debate will continue in the House of Lords where Liberal Democrat peers will continue to fight the proposed measures.
The Liberal Democrats strongly oppose increasing the period of pre-charge detention.
We oppose it because:
- 28 days detention without trial is already far longer than any other democratic country in the world
- It would be counter-productive, alienating the people whose help we most need to fight terrorism
- The Government have presented no remotely convincing evidence it is needed
Detaining someone for up to 42 days without even presenting them or their lawyer with any evidence against them is fundamentally illiberal.
How long do other countries allow detention without charge for?
Britain’s current limit for detention without charge, at 28 days, is already the longest pre-charge detention period in the world. The maximum in most other countries is far shorter. For example:
- Australia – 12 days maximum
- Ireland – 7 days maximum
- France – 6 days maximum
- Spain – 5 days maximum
- Russia – 5 days maximum
- Italy – 4 days maximum
- Germany – 2 days maximum
- United States – 2 days maximum
- New Zealand – 2 days maximum
- Canada – 1 day maximum
No other country with a common law system has sought such a lengthy period of detention without charge. Such a departure from the principles of traditional British justice must only be considered if there is overwhelming evidence, not for the purposes of “looking tough”.
Proposal would be counter-productive
Internment (detention without charge) in Northern Ireland was counter-productive because it angered and radicalised members of the Catholic community there.
Extending pre-charge detention would be likely to have the same effect on the Muslim community in Britain. The roots of terrorism can only be yanked out with the active help of the communities in which it exists. Heavy-handed measures like lengthy detention without charge will merely alienate the people we need on side.
No compelling evidence to support government case
The Government have presented no evidence in support of their case that is even remotely convincing. It is widely believed that the measure is a political one, designed simply to make the Prime Minister look strong, and the opposition parties as weak, on tackling terrorism.
Similar measures were defeated in November 2005 when Tony Blair pushed for pre-charge detention to be extended to 90 days. Lord Goldsmith was Attorney General at the time – the Government's senior law officer. Lord Falconer was Lord Chancellor, cabinet minister in charge of the Justice system, at the time. Free of ministerial ‘collective responsibility’, both of them now oppose the proposal to extend detention without trial. What does that say about the strength of the Government's case?
The vote in Parliament
MPs voted on the proposal on Wednesday 11th June.
Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the Government’s proposals along with the Conservatives and 36 Labour rebels. In a display of desperation, the Government tried every tactic in the book to whip their MPs into line.
Nick Robinson, speaking on the Today programme on Radio 4, said, “One Labour rebel was told he would get money for the Miners’ Compensation Fund in recent days. Another, that Gordon Brown would oppose sanctions on Cuba. Another who has not had a telephone call for 20 years from Gordon Brown had 20 minutes on the phone with Gordon Brown, pleading him to vote.”
Despite strong opposition the Bill was passed by 315 votes to 306 - a majority of just 9.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg described the result a “hollow victory” for the Government, only made possible by begging and political bribery. Speaking in Prime Minister’s Questions on the day of the vote, Mr Clegg highlighted that the proposals are very unlikely to become law, accusing the Prime Minister of “playing politics with our liberties.”
Despite the Government’s victory in the Commons, the Bill still needs to get through the House of Lords, where it will face strong opposition. Liberal Democrat peers, along with many Conservatives and Crossbenchers, will continue to oppose the Government’s proposals.
What do Liberal Democrats propose?
The period of time that people need to be detained before a charge is brought could be reduced if the Government bring in post-charge questioning. This is proposed in the current Bill and supported by the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats want intercept evidence to be allowed to be used in court. Most other countries allow the use of this material as evidence. We have also suggested that lesser charges could be made and upgraded if and when evidence of more serious crimes becomes available to the police.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently worked with the Government and others to agree effective laws to tackle terrorism. But we are not willing to go along with measures which are ineffective, illiberal and designed just to look tough.
What Labour parliamentarians say about the proposal
Opposition to the Government’s proposal is widespread. As well as the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives many Labour MPs and Lords have spoken out against it.
The Home Affairs select committee, which has a majority of Labour MPs, came out against the proposal in December last year. Former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith and former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer oppose the plan. Even current Justice Secretary Jack Straw is said to regard the proposal as a bad idea.
"I'm not convinced the government has made a case. I voted for 90 days because I did not see an alternative. What has changed my mind is that I now think there is an alternative package."
Labour MP Andrew Dismore, quoted in The Guardian, 1 Mar 2008
"How are you going to give Parliament enough information to make a decision? Are you going to ask Parliament to simply trust the secretary of state? That doesn't really give you a great deal of a safeguard? The case has not been made for that extension and I can't personally support it."
Labour peer and former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, speaking to MPs on the Counter-Terrorism Bill committee, quoted on BBC News Online, 22 April 2008
The extension of detention without charge is "not necessary and not needed to fight terrorism"
Labour peer and Ex-Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, speaking on BBC Radio 4's World at One, 17 Dec 2007, quoted on BBC News Online
Jack Straw, the justice secretary, has told Commons allies that he has reservations about the policy, which critics say will inflame tension among Muslims and lead to miscarriages of justice. “Jack understands that the bill as it stands is seriously flawed,” said a Labour colleague. “It is no accident that in public he has so far been silent on the issue.”
The Times, 13 April 2008
See also:
Justice and Crime