Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Brown's 42-day detention plan is crushed in House of Lords vote



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 October 2008
Gordon Brown tonight suffered a crushing 191 vote defeat over his plan to extend from 28 days to 42 the limit for pre-charge detention of terror suspects.
Peers overwhelmingly rejected the highly controversial move by 309 votes to 118 after an impassioned debate.

The Prime Minister will now have to decide whether to press ahead with the proposal, amid growing speculation that it may be dropped.

Tony Blair suffered his first Commons defeat over a bid to extend detention to 90 days in 2005. Parliament agreed instead to a 28 day limit.

Mr Brown's attempt to extend that to 42 days scraped through the Commons by just nine votes in June, despite a rebellion by 36 Labour MPs.

The Government had to rely then on the votes of Democratic Unionists.

The huge scale of tonight's Lords defeat will make Home Secretary Jacqui Smith wary of trying to force the measure through the Commons again.

And even if she did, there's likely to be a prolonged period of "ping-pong" with peers before Mr Brown would have decide whether to use the Parliament Act to ram the measure through the Lords.

The latest bid to extend pre-charge detention for terror suspects was rejected by a coalition of Tory and Liberal Democrat peers and Labour rebels.

They backed a move by crossbencher Lord Dear, a former chief inspector of constabulary, to bar any extension beyond 28 days in the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

Lord Dear, opening committee stage debate, said: "This attempt to appear tough on terrorism, I believe, is a shabby charade which is unworthy of a democratic process and we should reject it."

He argued there was "no evidence to date" that the existing 28-day limit had been insufficient and that no other common law democracy had a limit as high as 42 days.

The Association of Chief Police Officers backed the increase, he conceded. "But I have had numerous chief constables telling me privately that they see no reason for the extension and that privately they do not support it."

Lord Dear poured "scorn" on the "Byzantine" safeguards, which gave Parliament a quasi-judicial role in authorising an extension in individual cases. There were "grave risks of breaching sub judice arrangements, he warned.

To extend to 42 days, he warned, "would almost certainly give ammunition to those who seek to justify acts of terrorism against us. I think it would be an act of sheer folly to provide them with such a gift."

Tory frontbencher Baroness Neville-Jones – former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee – condemned the Government's plans as "unnecessary, undesirable and unworkable".

The proposed safeguards made it "unworkable and constitutionally worrying," she said.

"They risk conflating the roles of Parliament and the judiciary. They will place on Parliament demands to act in a quasi-judicial manner."
Lib Dem frontbencher Lord Thomas of Gresford QC warned the extension could lead to a "drying up of intelligence" from the Muslim community.

The Government was using the judiciary as "a convenient cover to give an aura of respectability to what is essentially executive detention".

Labour QC Lady Mallalieu said: "It surely is an essential ingredient of living in a free country that we are free from the fear of being locked up without charge."

Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Tebbit, who was seriously injured and whose wife was permanently disabled in the IRA's bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton during the 1984 Conservative Party conference, said he was backing the Government's plans and warned his party might "come to rue this day" if ministers lost the vote.

"If the lack of this provision leads to the police to fail to prevent a major terrorist outrage, what then?" he asked. "It might mean multiple fatalities, it might mean a strike against economically important infrastructure, with great consequences.

"It might mean we fail to prevent an outrage as great as the detonation of a dirty nuclear device in a city centre, leaving it uninhabitable for years."

Labour former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton said he would vote against the Government, telling peers: "If I thought that this provision for 42 days would make any difference at all in the fight against terrorism I would unhesitatingly support it."

Liberal Democrat Lord Carlile of Berriew, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that if 42-day detention had an adverse impact on civil liberties it would be on "a maximum of five or six people in the next four or five years", adding: "This is not the end of civil liberties as we know it."

• Police said tonight they were forced to lock the main public entrance to Parliament after protesters attempted to force their way into the building.

The full article contains 801 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 October 2008 9:19 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Terrorism in the UK
 
1

FS,

Stirling 13/10/2008 19:29:01
Wow, not usual for the HOL to be the play the role of defender of civil liberties. Nonetheless, the right decision, bout time this whole increased detention was called out for what it was!
2

Alan B,

13/10/2008 19:33:07
Bad decision. Brown will be unable to use the anti terror laws to arrest any Icelandic persons for 42 days. Just think the Iceland pm could come to the uk and we would have to charge him instead of using the anti terror laws and could not just detain him for more than a month.
3

Nevsky,

Moscow 13/10/2008 19:48:32
2 Alan#


Perhaps Brown could arrest Icelandic fish under anti-terrorist laws and pay the country back for his failed ecomonic policy with fish suppers?
4

danielrober,

13/10/2008 21:12:06
Excellent. A healthy democracy at work.
5

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 21:19:15
The sad part is this legislation was voted down simply because it was Labour legislation and the house of Lords is dominated by Tory peers it wasnt voted down because its bad legislation immoral unethical and undemocratic. The Tories just wanted to stuff Liebour.
At least the result was a good one even if the motivation was naff.
6

Nevsky,

Moscow 13/10/2008 21:49:07
4 Rober#

You are the biggest hypocrite out there; the first time an SNP policy is voted down you will be foaming at the mouth; however even when Labour are defeated it is a success.

The real democracy at work will be Glenrothes!
7

WSS,

Sandbach 13/10/2008 22:28:58
The Home Secretary had to stand up in the Commons to-night and try and defend the worst ever defeat the Gov. had experieced in the Lords, sitting behind her was the architect of the 42 day plan, oor Gordon. The only reason the 42 day plan was put forward was because Brown wanted to show Blair that he could do something that Blair had failed to achieve.This pathetic PM has also achieved something else that no other PMs have achieved, he ruined the banking system by letting the country's debt run out of control. Another first for which he will never be forgiven.
8

danielrober,

13/10/2008 22:31:52
# 6 Nevsky,Moscow

Nevsky, my fake Russian debater. I'm not a member of the Labour party so i can disagree with their policies and do not have to accept 'all' as a compromise, which you do as a member of the SNP (i'm assuming).

As for this policy been thrown out i'm over the moon and i'll dance a fling when the ID cards and shinny bridge project are dropped. Two policies chosen by professionals politicians to make them look good on documentaries, both will cost tax payers a fortune.

Two governments one in London and one in Edinburgh are spending billions for 'feet' of documentary coverage. The worse thing is, i don't think you have a clue what i'm talking about. Your trapped in the past as an unreformed British political party the SNP needs polices not policy statements.

Such as shame that you'll let no one help you. But hey its not your money is it, it tax payers money and you'll declare independence before your audited.
9

Nevsky,

Moscow 13/10/2008 23:39:11
8 Daniel#

Not sure why you call me a 'fake Russian debator' and neither are you right in assuming i am an SNP member, i am not!

I am happy this bill is failing too because unlike you i actually live in a country where you have to carry your passport at all times along with city registrations, visa, work permits, OVIR verification and medical insurance and if you want a mobile phone or a fridge you have your passport details taken!

Not a route the UK needs to go down!

10

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 13/10/2008 23:42:56
8

The SNP only need one policy Independence only with that policy will we finally be in a position to dictate all other policies for ourselves.
11

danielrober,

13/10/2008 23:47:15
# 9 Nevsky,Moscow

Then we are in agreement then. Which is always the best time to end good night. And here's hoping the credit crunch will sink some confusing government policies in Scotland and the UK before we are all given a vast new set of bills.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Features

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.