Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Wednesday, 3rd 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.

Terror bill in disarray after 42-day detention bid defeated in Lords



View Video
Download Video

Video

Ed Milliband on the government's failed terror legislation
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: 14 October 2008
PLANS to increase the length of time terror suspects can be held without charge – from 28 to 42 days – are to be dropped from the Counter-Terrorism Bill after a crushing Lords defeat.
In an emergency Commons statement last night Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said the measure would instead be the subject of a separate piece of legislation, to be brought before parliament if required.

Opposition parties were quick to capitalise on the move.

The Liberal Democrats said it was a "humiliating retreat", while Pete Wishart, the SNP home affairs spokesman described the announcement as a "cataclysmic climbdown."

Meanwhile, the Tories called for Ms Smith to admit she was abandoning the 42-day detention plan.

Flanked by Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, and speaking over jeers Ms Smith told the Commons said: "Some may take the security of Britain lightly – I don't." She added that the Counter-Terrorism Temporary Provisions Bill stood ready to be introduced "if and when the need arises".

The emergency late-evening statement came just hours after peers, including former Labour Lord Chancellors Lord Falconer and Lord Irvine, voted by a huge 191 majority against extending pre-charge detention to 42 days.

Ms Smith warned: "We face a terrorist threat that is at the severe end of severe."

She said the Commons had voted in favour of the 42-day detention limit, but the Lords had taken a different view "despite the considered view of all leading counter terrorism professionals that these powers will be necessary and should be there.

"My priority remains the protection of the British people. I do not believe, as some MPs clearly do, that it is enough simply to cross our fingers and hope for the best.

"That is not good enough because when it comes to national security, there are certain risks I'm not prepared to take."

Dominic Grieve, the Tories' shadow home secretary, said the Prime Minister's "spin doctors" had stopped Ms Smith from "saying in straightforward terms that she is abandoning 42 days".

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems leader said: "The decision to prepare emergency legislation instead is merely a fig leaf which does little to disguise their defeat.

"Generations of Britons have fought and died to preserve these freedoms and the government has learnt the hard way that they cannot be ditched on a whim."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, warned the campaign against the measures would fight on.

She said: "Liberty has been overwhelmed by the public and parliamentary support for our campaign against this dangerous and counter-productive measure.

"Rest assured that if any government tries this again we will be ready."

The rejection of what is a major plank of the government's counter-terrorism policy is a setback for Mr Brown, but had been expected following sustained criticism of the bill from senior members of the Lords, including former intelligence chief Eliza Manningham-Buller.

Opponents, including many Labour members of the Lords, saw the proposed law changes as violating Britain's civil liberties and out of line with other Western democracies, where detention limits are already far shorter.

The measures squeezed through in June despite more than 30 Labour rebels voting with the Opposition.

The full article contains 546 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 October 2008 11:41 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Terrorism in the UK
 
1

SouthernSkye,

14/10/2008 07:05:01
The bill is not in disarray, simply common sense has been applied.It is times like this when one can appreciate the need for the Lords.
2

steve 1511,

aberdeen 14/10/2008 07:23:42
another failure for our great leader comrade kim broon the fifer,broon is doomed and were doomed with broon
3

carrottop,

Dumfries 14/10/2008 07:48:47
The people who voted against this bill are the same people who in the event of a terrorist attack are heard to say 'why didnt you do something'
4

Vote UKIP,

14/10/2008 07:53:31
A kick in the face for the NuLabour Nazi Party!

This has nothing to do with terrorism. The real terrorists are the rogue criminals who've taken over our government.

Why were anti-terror laws used to seize Iceland's assets in the UK? You don't think the anti-terror laws will be used against you someday to limit your freedoms? Wake up and smell the tyranny!
5

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 14/10/2008 08:41:05
4

My god you are capable of posting sensibly. I never thought I would see the day. Well done.
6

Me, myself and I,

Livingston 14/10/2008 08:57:17
New Labour Fascist tyranny in action.

We the people are an irrelevant nuicance whose only purpose is to pay tax and support vile creatures like Mandelson, who if he were in any other walk of like would be in jail.
7

Doh,

14/10/2008 09:09:19


Another discredited Labour policy, we would all be better off if this Labour government was removed.

Labour = 42 days detention.
Labour = ID cards
Labour = war in Iraq.
Labour = 10p tax rise for the very poorest.

Next election anyone but Labour.


8

Puzzler,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 09:56:58
OK so no extended periods in jug for suspected terrorists.

We can now sit back and wait for the next atrocity - and rest assured, its a question of when, not if.

Emboldened by many people's tendency to either pretend that the terror threat does not exist, or if it does we can defuse it by letting these loonies edit our foreign policy, they will see us as cowards afraid to defend ourselves and will act accordingly. They will duly "punish" our society once again for not being the right religion, giving theirs pride of place, not forcing women into subjection and having the effrontery to live by our own laws.

At that point, when the body count gets too high to be ignored any longer, we will finally wake up and a lot of innocent people will get caught in the blowback, as far more extreme measures are brought in to make up for the fact that our society has sat on its hands in the face of mortal danger for years.
9

Iain D,

Tunbridge Wells 14/10/2008 10:23:09
Having lived in London throught the Irish terror campaigns and still work in London (a couple of hundred yards from where one of the last bombs went off) I do not deny that terrorism is real but giving this or any government these powers will be used against us, not the terrorists. What happened to Iceland has already been quoted but lets add to the list Local Councils using "anti terror legislation" to check on the contents of bins, veracity of school applications etc.
What is need is the enforcement of our existing laws, no dancing delicately around minority rights, deport all illegals regardless of their lack of papers. If an immigrant breaks our law sent them home (The Australian example). If a refugee claimant is proved to be unjustified send them back at once not after 5-10 years of appeals. The Human Rights Act should be amended to take account of the existing population's rights to live without over popultation, submersion in a foreign culture and fear of terror.
10

Iain D,

Tunbridge Wells 14/10/2008 10:25:35
I used the phrase "dancing delicately" becuase I was not allowed to use a phrase that included a diminutive pet term for a cat with footing.
11

The Tin Man,

14/10/2008 10:46:13
Out of interest, would an independent Scottish parliament have a second house to avoid the implementation of dogmatic legislation?
12

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 14/10/2008 12:39:56
Thank the Lord(s) !
13

Kipling,

14/10/2008 13:57:55
Iain D,Tunbridge Wells, remember that the Ohio bombing was caused by an American. Remember that all the newspapers reported it initially as otherwise. Remember that even one 'Independent' newspaper middle east reporter was in on the act, which ah turned out to be a non middleeastern event. In America, in whose steps we generally follow, there were amongst others the Weathermen, and there was also a scientist who possibly sent anthrax through the post. But don't think this Act will be against such indigenous threats if they manifest themselves here. That's maybe why there was no such Act instigated when the Irish were bombing London. What size do you think would have been the uproar from the resident Irish population if individuals had been imprisoned on the mainland for such a period of time ? The act is almost certainly now however against individuals who are from suspected immigrant groups with a religious bias and to punish one set of people without declared reason is to establish the British equivalent of Guantanamo Bay. As I recall the information that the London bombers were a potential menace was available without all this 42-day nonsense and was never acted on. 42-day detention should not be an excuse for lazy/bad/poor policing. Hire people with more and faster intelligence and without any pro- or anti- prejudices, ie, professionals.

On the other hand, you have a point with the abuse of terrorist laws by local councils et al. It would be interesting to have a survey of which councils, what the political colour of the people using such laws against such triviality was, etc. They should be named and shamed.
14

mike3,

Midlands 14/10/2008 16:44:17
Thought it was meant to prove that Brown was a toughie and not a bottler..... but now that he has saved the universe is it needed?
15

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 14/10/2008 17:12:43
11

Interesting question there obviously isnt any point having one with a devolved Parliament but I reckon they should have a second house but also elected by the public and not a house of privledge.
16

Alan B,

14/10/2008 19:07:31
#The Tin Man

Because of PR you are less likely to get dogmatic legislation. With the first past the post system it gives a party huge powers.

Personally i am not in favour of a second chamber but would consider other things.

1)referendums like the US. Have questions added to elections to let the public decide via direct democracy. ID cards could then be defeated by referenda if introduced by government etc.

2)i also quite like the idea of a president. That way you get a clear divide between parliament and the executive. One interesting thing about the US is that politicians do not vote on party lines the same way the uk does. It would be good to free our mps from always voting under whip and threats for the executive.

It also means that the people can choose the leader and not the parties. Leaders of parties tend to have climbed the greasy poll. If you look at mayoral elections in london people chose livingston and rejected the party candidates.

3)Would also consider majors for our cities. Like we can see in london that really does force more devolution and takes power down to that level away from central government.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.