Detention without charge

Trevor Smith (York, House of Lords): Yesterday's Lords' debate on the Counter-Terrorism Bill was a traditional set-piece parliamentary occasion. The House was packed to capacity. In the last decade or so only the debates on Clause 28, the abolition of fox hunting and the Lisbon Treaty had the same flavour.
 
It was particularly interesting to observe the fissures in the various sectors of the Chamber. The biggest split was among the Labour Lords. Ranged on one side were the securicrats in the form of Foulkes Of Cumnock, Harris of Haringey and Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, with the liberal wing being represented by Baroness Malllieu and Lords Falconer and Morris of Aberavon. Former police chiefs were also divided between Lords Dear and Condon voting against 42 days and Lord Imbert who supported the proposal, though the former security service heads voted against it. Ex judges and former Lord Chancellors and Attorneys General voted against and only two Labour QCs ( Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Wedderburn) voted with the government. Lord Tebbit was the lone Tory dissident who voted for 42 days. Apart from the minister, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, the military top brass who turned out voted against the government. The one bishop in attendance, Southwark, voted against.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Among those joining the roll of shame of 118 peers who voted for 42 days are: Adonis, Campbell-Savours, Clinton-Davis, Darzi, Gould, Hollis, Kinnock, Lipsey, Malloch-Brown, Mandelson, Radice, Rooker, Soley, Triesman, Wedderburn, Whitty. You can find the full list of the disgraced here.But well done Tessa Blackstone.

I was very disappointed to see that Lord Melvin Bragg abstained. So much for the great intellectual of broadcasting!

Tom Griffin (London, OK): After a tellingly one-sided debate, the House of Lords has this evening voted against the extension of detention without charge, by an overwhelming margin of 309 votes to 118.

What remains to be seen now is whether the plans will return to the Commons, as Ministers have publicly maintained, or quietly dropped as much of the media seems to have been briefed.

Update: The 42 days provision is being shelved. Amnesty's Patrick Corrigan reacts:

Disgraceful speech from the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith this evening, as she dropped proposals for 42 days detention without charge, yet announced a new piece of counter-terrorism legislation to contain similar proposals in response to the rout her government had earlier suffered at the hands of the Lords.

As she revealed the outline of the Counter-terrorism 'temporary provisions' Bill, she accused those who opposed 42 days detention of underestimating the terrorist threat and of taking Britain's security lightly. Opposition spokespersons were having none of it in a well-attended and stormy Commons. The SNP's Pete Wishart rightly described her performance as an act of "petulant defiance".

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): On the eve of the crucial vote in the House of Lords on the issue, Liberty has published a collection of pieces by forty two of Britain's literary figures attacking the extension of pre-charge detention in terrorism cases to 42 days. They have set up a nifty little website dedicated to the collection as part of their Charge or Release campaign: www.42writers.com. It features the name of a different author in each of the forty two calendar days, illustrating quite graphically the sheer length of time the Government wants to imprison people for. It joins Amnesty's new campaign and petition against 42 Days you can sign up to here.

I spent an enjoyable half hour clicking through each of the calendar days, reading some powerful contributions from Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Ian Rankin, Hari Kunzru and other literary big-hitters. What the authors do a great job of conveying (far better than any lawyer or political commentator could hope to) is the sheer length of time we're talking about and the intense personal trauma visited upon the innocent. I won't say much more than that because I hope people will check the site out for themselves. But I do want to quote in full the following poem by Ali Smith. By focusing on the simple passage of time, it asks the reader to empathise with the plight of an innocent detainee - a useful thought experiment perhaps for any of their lordships not quite convinced of the injustice of what is being proposed:

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Over at Comment is Free, OurKingdom founder Anthony Barnett reflects on the lessons of the 42 day debacle:

There is an authoritarian cancer in the British system that has metastasised. From the Treasury-inspired "transformational government", to local council CCTV, to the interception modernisation programme that proposes to "live tap" all electronic communication, to ID cards – you name it, it seems, and they will be onto it – an official will is at work to police, control, arrest and expel. It regards restraints, from the Human Rights Act to parliamentary scrutiny as "old thinking". And it is turbo-charged by the huge funding opportunities that "new thinking" permits.

However, I also think that even if we do not have a healthy body politic, we do have a healthy public attitude which can purge the cancer and cure the patient. 

Tom Griffin (London, OK):With the Counter Terrorism Bill due to resume its passage though Parliament this week, Amnesty has launched a new petition against the provision to extend detention without charge to 42 days. The petition will be presented to Parliament if the legislation returns to the Commons, with individual MPs also being presented with signatures from their own constituents.

Such opposition may yet help to force a Government U-turn in the wake of the Lords defeat predicted by today's Times:

Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal to hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be defeated in the House of Lords.

Ministers admit privately that there is not “a cat in Hell’s chance” of the legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into law.

The Government has decided against using the Parliament Act to force the measure through after peers reject it, The Times has learnt. That decision will effectively confine the controversial proposal — which the Prime Minister fought tooth and nail to get through a Commons vote in June — to the legislative dustbin.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In a key intervention in the 42 days debate last month, the former head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller stated: "arguments can be made to justify any time of detention, just as in other countries, although mercifully not here, they can be made to justify any method of interrogation."

That remark elided key questions about how far the security services are complicit in interrogation practices overseas, questions which were raised anew in a High Court judgement on Thursday.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): There is a moving piece on Comment is Free today written by Hicham Yezza, the University of Nottingham employee arrested and held under the Terrorism Act for having an al-Quaida manual on his PC that had been downloaded from a US government website by his friend, Rizwaan Sabir, for use in postgraduate research. Yezza describes in powerful terms the fear and anguish he felt held in solitary confinement for days on end not knowing why. It's essential reading for those who would dismiss detention without charge as a minor inconvenience, nothing that a bit of compensation won't solve. Yezza's entire life has been devastated. Perhaps the worst part of the experience for Yezza was the feeling that his whole existence was now under question:

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In order to get the the Counter-terrorism Bill through the Commons in June, the Government promised a parliamentary vote if it was necessary to extend the detention of terror suspects temporarily for up to 42 days.

That proposal has been systematically taken apart today in a report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee which warns that Parliament is 'institutionally ill-equipped' for the role which is being thrust upon it.

 Rosemary Bechler (London, openDemocracy): responds to Anthony Barnett's coverage of the campaign against 42 days:

Thanks for the cogent reading of this important moment in the decline of the Westminster hall of mirrors. Doesn’t one need to include in a third episode in this drama? – the refusal of the two main political parties challenged in this bye-election to participate in debating the issues. For all the commenting and blogging, as in the case of the Iraq war and an ever-lengthening list of crucial decisions for the UK, we still have not been told why 42 days is deemed to be necessary to our national interest. All the talk simply obscures this ominous silence.

David (Cambridge, Britology Watch): There has been much discussion recently – including on Britology Watch – about whether English nationalism can be reconciled with progressive politics; and whether progressives need to espouse the nationalist cause, associate it with left-of-centre values, and thereby prevent it from falling into the hands of the far right.

Lyndon Radnedge, OK: Despite early bluster from Kelvin McKenzie and some calls from Davis supporters for an interesting candidate, no one has taken up the challenge to debate the 42-day issue in by-election form. Labour refused to stand and the Lib Dems claimed solidarity with David Davis’ cause. 

Beth Forrester (Unlock Democracy): On Saturday 5th July 2008, a team of four from Unlock Democracy, travelled to Cottingham in East Yorkshire. We were to have a stall at Cottingham Day, an annual fun day in this historic Yorkshire village, to educate people about civil liberties, encourage people to value their rights and discuss the issue of extending pre-charge detention to 42 days (although our activities were of course prompted by the decision by David Davis to resign and initiate this by-election, Unlock Democracy does not support any candidate).

The day did not go entirely to plan but then the best experiences rarely do. All our activities in this campaign, including our wraparound adverts for both the East Riding Advertiser and the West Hull Advertiser, were funded by individuals who had donated money specifically. We were also helped by useful advice provided by a number of helpful local contacts including Alan Williams who had told us about the fayre.  With Alan’s help, four Liberal Democrat members, a local councillor and the local MEP Diana Wallis all came down to support us. This was great turnout and we were grateful for the support.

On arriving in Cottingham we found that this support was unfortunately not universal and were told, despite repeated phone and email contact the previous week to the contrary, that we did not have a stall booked. Eventually, we were placed next to the police safety bus, which provided a good balance in the discussion about civil liberties versus the need to be protected from crime.

Our other challenge was the weather: the continual heavy rain and strong winds threatened to blow away not only our stall, but also the whole fayre at times.  We were well prepared for this, with waterproofs, plastic sheeting and umbrellas, allowing us to keep campaigning and even provide some shelter to rain and wind beaten fayre-goers. To further improve our activity we distributed flyers and sweets amongst the public and engage them in discussion whilst visiting other areas of the fayre. This was an effective strategy, with people explaining why they were or were not voting and how they felt about civil liberties.

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Gordon Brown is on shakier ground than he thinks on 42 days pre-charge detention for people suspected of terrorist offences. On the eve of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, a new ICM poll conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust shows most people (60%) think terrorist suspects should be held without charge for no more than the current limit - 4 weeks, or 28 days.

Patrick Corrigan, (Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond): Will Northern Ireland's (non-DUP) Lords help restore Northern Ireland's Westminster reputation when the Government's counter-terrorism Bill comes to the upper house tomorrow? When the government won the vote at the Bill's first reading in the Commons by just nine votes, the chamber rang with jeers and furious cries of 'shame' directed at the DUP MPs who had just voted with Brown after an eleventh hour private meeting with the PM.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The House of Lords begins debating the Counterterrorism Bill on Tuesday, the day after the third anniversary of the 7/7 bomb attacks in London.

In a briefing on the legislation released today, Human Rights Watch argues that detaining terrorism suspects for up to six weeks without charge violates the fundamental right to liberty and risks undermining counterterrorism efforts.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Courtesy of Benedict Brogan's blog is the following exchange of letters between Gordon Brown and David Davis. Davis had written to the PM, as well as Cabinet Ministers, last week to challenge them to a debate on 42 days and the state of freedom in Britain. Davis even suggested Labour MPs have been gagged by Brown to stop them engaging in the debate. Here is Brown's reply:

Dear David

As you know, Prime Ministers are available once a week at Question Time to debate all the issues of the day, and I was disappointed that you chose to step down as a Member of Parliament in advance of Question Time on Wednesday, 11 June rather than coming to the House to debate with me the issues around the use of CCTV and DNA evidence, and the measures we have taken to protect our national security.

Nevertheless, the leader of your party has the opportunity each week to ask six questions on those issues that caused you to leave his Shadow Cabinet. He has had two such opportunities to date, but he has yet to ask any such question. He has two further opportunities to raise these issues before the 'by-election' on July 10th, and I am sure that if he shares your strong feelings about them, he will not duck those opportunities.

Gordon Brown

Michael Calderbank (ERS): Alexandra Runswick commends David Davis for forcing a by-election for his Haltemprice and Howden seat and thereby raising a pertinent question about our concern for civil liberties, "regardless of whether this was the best way to do it". Whilst I share the widespread dissension from the government's insistence on 42 days, I don't think we can simply skate over the dubious democratic legitimacy of this artificially contrived by-election.

Maybe Davis has indeed been successful in posing the question of "how much do you value your rights and freedoms", but it's far from clear that that's the only question being asked, and - more worryingly still - it is extremely unclear how this particular by-election is in a position to answer it conclusively. Whether the by-election is seen as a narrowly defined plebiscite on the question of 42 days, or on the wider philosophical question of our basic liberties, these are surely issues of concern to the nation as a whole. It is far from clear why a few thousand voters in a relatively affluent part of the rural East Riding of Yorkshire should get to arbitrate on our collective behalf. And were Davis to be re-elected with an increased majority, as seems likely, would the good burghers of this constituency feel assured that their liberties would be championed by an MP who supports the death penalty and attacks trade union rights? Would a resounding victory over Miss Great Britain and the Monster Raving Loony party really signify a historic expression of liberal resistance to an increasingly authoritarian state?

The Green party campaign against David Davis has been launched by their candidate Shaun Oakes and strikes a dreadful note of holier than thou. They could hardly do more to turn people off politics if they tried.

This is what its male spokesperson Derek Wall announced: "This by-election was supposed to be about civil liberties." Note the word “supposed”. It’s a classic, negative, snide attack implying Davis is a hypocrite. Wall continues:

Rupert Read (Norwich, The Green Party): The powers that be at Our Kingdom are welcoming the way Davis has called this highly-unusual byelection. I can understand that; I can understand the desire to applaud and welcome what he has done and what he is making possible. I said as much myself, in my earlier post on this on OK.

But I think what we also need to be very clear about is that no way is David Davis any kind of poster boy for civil liberties. Much of what he believes in and much of his record is extremely antithetical to what many on OK take for granted. I fear that this fact has not fully emerged in most of what has been written on OK about this byelection campaign.