FINDING THE right balance between individual rights and state security is an ancient and abiding issue in the definition of liberty. It was brought to a new pitch in Britain on Wednesday evening, when the House of Commons voted by 315 to 306 in favour of legislation to introduce a 42-day, pre-charge detention period for terrorist suspects. The government majority was secured only with the help of the nine Democratic Unionist Party MPs, who unconvincingly said they supported it on merit and not because of other concessions.
Some 35 rebel Labour MPs and many other critics – not least the Conservative opposition – say the legislation is unnecessary. It is the product of cynical party politics, they argue, rather than of any identifiable threat from Islamic or other terrorists who have carried out several atrocities in Britain over recent years. Prime minister Gordon Brown made its passage increasingly a point of principle as he steadily lost political credibility this year. Having seen it pass after intense arm-twisting, side payments and other pressures, he can claim to have been a steadfast defender of state security, more in tune with public opinion than the Conservatives – although they too are now in some disarray on the issue following yesterday’s resignation of their spokesman David Davis, who strenuously opposed the 42-day proposal.
Aside from those who reject it in principle, an impressive array of security experts deny it is needed or will work in practice. Britain is now quite out of line with other states in having a 42-day detention period for these suspected offences. Canada has one day, the United States and Germany two days, it is four in Italy, five in Russia and six in France. In the UK it was only two days up to 2000, after which it increased to 14 and then the current 28 days, pushed strongly by Tony Blair, who campaigned for an extraordinary 90-day period after the London bombing atrocities.
There is little or no evidence that longer pre-trial detention produces more evidence or better intelligence. So far at least half of those detained have been released uncharged. As critics point out, it is far more likely to alienate them and the communities they come from. The damage done to Britain’s traditions of individual liberty by these bulldozer tactics is immense, compared to the outcomes on the security side of the argument. It seems certain that the House of Lords will heavily amend or block the legislation and that it will be appealed on to the European Court of Human Rights. It deserves to fall at either of these hurdles.