The New Statesman will campaign for a full Bill of Rights to underpin a new written constitution.

This Labour government, more than any other, has deprived citizens of their liberties in the name of security. Some senior figures, particularly Tony Blair and John Reid, have been unrepentant, viewing the concerns of civil libertarians with disdain. Their argument was simple - the British public is prepared to accept unlimited intrusion in order to keep ruffians quiet and terrorists at bay.

Gordon Brown's utterances suggest similar thinking. Back in November 2005, at a time when a rebellion could have helped his cause, he told Labour MPs to back plans to increase pre-custodial sentences to 90 days. Many ignored him. A speech in October 2006 entitled "Meeting the Terrorist Challenge" gave no hint of a softening of his position. His latest thoughts, splashed in Sunday newspapers and calling for the 28-day custody rule to be extended, terrorism to be codified as an aggravating crime and wire-tapping to be permitted as evidence, came, therefore, as little surprise.

Governments do not call for fewer controls over their citizens. They snatch and grab where they can, as recent examples attest. There may have been a legitimate need to protect constituents' confidential dealings with MPs, but that could have been done without trying to stop freedom of information legislation from applying overall to Westminster. The same goes for ID cards. There are many sharper ways of tackling identity fraud and absconding than this expensive and dangerous scheme. As for terrorism, different legal systems notwithstanding, Britain's laws relating to questioning suspects are already among the most illiberal in the free world. Again, exemptions could be applied granting the authorities powers to detain in limited circumstances. We do not need new overarching laws.

It is disappointing to note that these various steps towards opaque, chaotically applied justice - where the police and security agencies can abandon due process - have provoked so little opposition inside and outside parliament. Maybe recurrent rounds of repressive legislation are dulling the nation's sensibilities. Harriet Harman (a lawyer, civil libertarian and contender for the deputy leadership) has, for example, blithely accepted the proposals and believes MPs are likely to vote for them.

How far is Brown prepared to go? New Labour, as Peter Hain, another deputy leadership contender, points out in his trenchant piece on page 10, has always conveyed the impression that it cares little for civil liberties in its desperate attempts to ingratiate itself with the right-wing media.

It was therefore intriguing that Brown was so quick to clarify his remarks of 3 June. He has gone further than Blair to allay concerns, using the language of justice and constitutionalism. He promises to accompany anti-terrorist measures with "accountability to parliament and the independent oversight of what police and other authorities are doing". The details are sketchy and the suspicion remains, however, that these are a mere fig leaf. The onus will be on him to prove they are not.

The prime minister-in-waiting poses a challenge for civil libertarians. His latest pronouncements hint at concern with national identity and the rights and responsibilities of being British. When he formally takes over on 27 June, he will need, as a matter of urgency, to give a clearer sense both of the specifics and of the principles that will guide his approach to the powers of the state and the rights of the individual.

There is one way for Brown to join up the dots and it is one that should appeal to his nature. He has called for a debate on the constitution and pledged a draft bill setting out a new approach. He should get this under way soon. The NS will campaign for a full Bill of Rights to underpin a new written constitution. Such a bill should determine the rights and responsibilities of all. Britons can no longer rely on precedent and the good sense of a particular set of politicians or judges to safeguard their rights.

How much more effective to encourage citizenship with a bill spelling out protections enshrined in law than with a folder of platitudes and a British Day designed to instil community pride.

Not entirely achievement free

The incarceration of Paris Hilton for driving offences has been greeted with unseemly glee throughout not only her native United States, but the entire world. Many have evinced an ungenerous delight in the privations of a young lady they see as privileged, pampered and talentless: as the epitome of today's "famous for being famous" celebrity culture.

Here at the New Statesman we take an alternative view. Quite apart from the fact that such gloating is neither gentlemanly nor sisterly, and that taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others is never an admirable course, it is also misplaced. For Miss Hilton is not quite the achievement-free zone some think. She has written a bestselling autobiographical book providing invaluable advice on life as an heiress, launched a perfume and released a pop record.

Neither let us omit her acting career (we refer, naturally, not to the home-made video released on DVD as One Night in Paris). Who can forget her palpitating performance as Paige Edwards in the 2005 horror film House of Wax, a role for which she won the Teen Choice Award for "Best Scream" and was nominated at the MTV Awards in the "Best Frightened Performance" category? Her talent was no less dazzling than that of your average American teen-flick dippy blonde.

Informed critics, we hear, are already scouring dictionaries for superlatives to describe her next celluloid adventure, The Hottie and the Nottie.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website