News from the New Party

Think of a number (again)

Once again the government is seeking to extend the period that a terrorism suspect can be held without charge: this time to forty-two days, rather than fifty-six or ninety. The Guardian reports:

The government came under fire today as it announced plans to extend the length of time that terrorism suspects can be held without charge to 42 days and was warned it faces a battle to get the legislation through parliament.

Home secretary Jacqui Smith's announcement appeared to be an attempt at a compromise as the government had previously indicated it favoured a 30-day extension to 58 days.

Outlining the new plans, she said that the power would "only be used where there is a clear operational need related to a particular operation or investigation", and that the government approach was "significantly different from the one originally proposed".

But David Winnick, the senior Labour backbencher who led opposition to the 2005 proposal for 90-day detention, said that, even if the Commons voted in favour of an extension, it "almost certainly would be thrown out by the Lords".

The Liberal Democrats immediately condemned the government's insistence on pushing for an increase in the detention limit as "pig-headed stubbornness", while the Conservatives said Labour had "lost the argument".

"No evidence has been produced in my view - and in the view of a good number of other people who have taken a close interest in this matter - that any extension is necessary," said Winnick.

"Even if the Commons does carry the proposal, one would assume it would be on a rather narrow majority and almost certainly would be thrown out by the Lords."

Since the government first tried to extend the period to ninety days back in 2005, and was eventually forced to settle for the current limit of 28 days, the efforts to extend the period further have been driven by what parliament can be persuaded to accept, rather than what limit is actually appropriate. 

This is disconcerting, but nevertheless understandable, not least because essentially any limit is, in any circumstance, an entirely arbitrary one.  Forty-two days will always be enough for any terrorist investigation until the time comes when the police need forty-three.  Ninety days will be long enough until a particular case emerges which requires ninety-one. 

Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of the government's terrorist legislation (and a Liberal Democrat peer), has previously suggested that a rolling seven-day limit reviewed weekly by the courts might be more appropriate.  Although this implicitly acknowledges the nonsense of adopting arbitrary time limits, it has also gone down like a lead balloon with civil liberties campaigners, as well as with politicians who recognise the impossibility of gaining parliamentary approval for such a scheme.

This being the case, the government would be better off engaging the opposition parties properly in negotiation to produce a real consensus around the principles involved and what the genuine needs of law enforcement, national security and public protection demand.  Haggling over arbitrary time limits is a distraction, and the implications for civil liberties are onerous.  If ever there was a case requiring cross-party agreement then this is it.