City Labour MPs support 42 days
CONTROVERSIAL government moves to hold terror suspects for 42 days without charge have been backed by city Labour MPs.
Alison Seabeck for Plymouth Devonport and Linda Gilroy for Plymouth Sutton support the Prime Minister's plan to extend the period suspects may be held without trial.
But Tory MP for South West Devon Gary Streeter is opposed to extending the detention period beyond the current 28 days, arguing there is no the need.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was hopeful of victory in a crunch vote today, when a rebellion by Labour backbenchers threatens to inflict the first Commons defeat of Gordon Brown's premiership.
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis claimed that Labour whips were turning Wednesday's division into a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister.
Speaking ahead of the vote Ms Seabeck said: “There are a number of cases now which are knocking up against 27 and 28 days.
“I would prefer to have it in the back pocket with all the considerable concessions to ensure civil liberties are protected.
“Because clearly we do not want to run the risk of being in a position where we have to let a suspected terrorist go free because we run out of time.”
But Mr Streeter, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee which has examined the issue in detail, said: “I don't think we should be legislating now on the basis of what may possibly happen in the future.
“We have to balance security with civil liberties. Twenty-eight days is around the right balance at the moment. Of course we must keep it under review.”
Safeguards offered by the Government for parliamentary checks were “utterly meaningless”. “There will be no information to scrutinise any decision. It's fanciful,” Mr Streeter said.
But Mrs Gilroy supports an extension because of the complexity of the current terrorist threat.
“Being ahead of what could happen in the future, rather than legislating in difficult situations that might arise, is better,” she said.
Mrs Gilroy added: “The Government has moved a long, long way to accommodate the concerns which should rightly be debated, about protections for people who may be detained.”
Some 50 Labour MPs have voiced concern about the proposed new police powers, but it is unclear how many have been won over by new safeguards announced by Ms Smith last week to prevent them being used in an arbitrary fashion.
Mr Brown could survive a rebellion by as many as 35 Labour MPs if he can secure the support of the Democratic Unionist Party and some Tories, such as Ann Widdecombe, who want the detention limit extended.
Counter-terrorism minister Tony McNulty said: “I think common sense will prevail and Parliament will pass it.”
However, the proposals could face an even tougher battle to get through the Lords, where former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and ex-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith have been leading critics.
Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald has said that he does not see any need for an extension beyond 28 days.
30 Comments
View all
by Dan, Darite
Saturday, August 16 2008, 5:03PM
“Does noone see the unbelievable hypocracy of David Davis who, as a supporter of capital punishment, is quiet happy to possibly hang an innocent man but objects strongly to locking him up for 42 days.
What is being locked up for 42 days compaired with the lives of people murdered in a terrorist action?”
by Tony, plympton
Friday, June 13 2008, 11:59PM
“I lost a friend in the 7/7 bombings in London and someone being held for 42 days is nothing compared to the life time of suffering that I, all my friends and especially his family are still going through. Nothing really changes in 42 days so what is the big deal of keeping someone who may be a terrorist lock up. At the end of the day 42 days is nothing compared to a whole life time. Keep all suspects locked up as long as they need to be!!!!”
by picofarad, Plymouth
Friday, June 13 2008, 6:22PM
“'1984'...that was me singing in a robot kind of stylee. Our freedom is being gradually eroded and nobody seems to care. We have more CCTV cameras than the Rolling Stones have had birthdays, a prime minister who wasn't elected, imprisonment up to 42 days without proof of evidence...need I say more!”
by Angela, plymouth
Friday, June 13 2008, 2:05PM
“The magna carter?(cosy2005@hotmail.co.uk)”
by jffunk, Plymouth
Thursday, June 12 2008, 1:02PM
“Ahhh. You know what, I can't stand this Government anymore. Isn't it about time we just give in to the dictatorship that is looming just around the corner?
I cannot agree enough that the West Country is being pushed aside, especially with the Wales water thing, you're kidding right? I mean you have to be joking.......
..............and as for this new 42 day legislation, why? o why?! would it take a month and a half to question someone and gather evidence? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Please just give me 5 minutes with the PM, he'd soon know that the West Country isn't backing him.....might just move abroad”
by Molly, Sutton
Wednesday, June 11 2008, 8:03PM
“Four weeks without charge was an outrage against magna carta and our judicial heritage. Six weeks adds insult to injury without even an explanation. The security services won't support it, the DPP and lord Advocate oppose it and some senior police officers struggle. the Ameericans are clear that all suspects must be charged after about 24 hours and the rest of the civilised world has very short periods. what makes us so vulnerable or inadequate without six weeks? And if it is passed into law what logic would there then be for not applying it equally to murders then serious dishonesty right down to shoplifting or dropping litter?”
by Pam, Plymouth
Wednesday, June 11 2008, 7:58PM
“Imprisoning people without charge for 42 days gives the police power to detain anyone they think looks like a terrorist, especially if their skin colour is not white. This is going to create even more tension between the races.”
by Molly, Sutton
Wednesday, June 11 2008, 7:11PM
“its the thin end of the wedge. if Magna Carta can be overthrown in this way then how long before the same rule applies to any vaguely serious allegation. Why are we the only country in the western world where even a tenth of this length of time is required. if the Americans etc need barely 24 hours why yo we need 4200% longer.”
by Molly, Sutton
Wednesday, June 11 2008, 7:10PM
“its the thin end of the wedge. if Magna Carta can be overthrown in this way then how long before the same rule applies to any vaguely serious allegation. Why are we the only country in the western world where even a tenth of this length of time is required. if the Americans etc need barely 24 hours why yo we need 4200% longer.”
by steve, plym
Wednesday, June 11 2008, 4:42PM
“i have no problem what so ever with this bill. if you have nothing to hide it won't affect you. at the endof the day it will only be inforced for suspected terrorist wanting to kill and mame not the normal shoplifter.”