At a time when Brown is fighting for his political life, it is impossible to tell whether what we have is a true process of dialogue

Gordon Brown has insisted that he is sticking to his principles over the extension of detention without charge for terror suspects. But what, precisely, are these principles? The principle of extending internment beyond anything deemed necessary by any other western democracy threatened by terrorism? The principle of proving the Prime Minister is tougher on security issues than the Conservatives? The principle of pig-headed political stubbornness? The principle of saving himself from a further humiliating reverse? We could go on, but these are not principles in any genuine sense. The government's stance on 42-day detention is based not on principle, but on expediency of the most cynical kind. Ministers calculate that the British public either backs the new powers or is indifferent to them.

The concessions to back-bench rebels are a welcome recognition that the reservations they have expressed are real. They also suggest that the Prime Minister is finally listening. At a time when Gordon Brown is fighting for his political life, however, it is impossible to tell whether this is a genuine process of dialogue. Under the compromise proposals, MPs will vote on any extension to 42 days within seven, rather than 30, days of a judge making the order. They have also been assured that a new limit will kick in only if there is a "grave exceptional terrorist threat". This may be enough to buy off the rebels, because it will give them political cover to shift sides. It does not mean the intellectual argument has been won.

Significant sections of the legal profession are opposed to the new measures, including the Director of Public Prosecutions himself, Ken Macdonald. Tony Blair's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, has written that the proposals undermine "the very basis of the free society that our ancestors fought so hard to create". The former lord chancellor Charles Falconer has changed his mind about extending the period of detention, because the threshold for charging suspects has been lowered. The Labour peers are already committed to opposing the legislation when it comes to the Lords this year. Both the home affairs and human rights committees of the House of Commons have said that there is no need to increase the limit.

The only interest group demanding an extension of the present 28-day limit is the police. With police action to combat terrorism under increasing scrutiny, it is no surprise that the force is seizing the opportunity to ask for more time to hold a suspect in order to secure a conviction.

Ministers never tire of telling us that senior police and their trade organisation, the Association of Chief Police Officers, back the moves for an extension. In a well-timed article for the Daily Telegraph, the Met's former counterterrorism supremo Peter Clarke has also thrown his weight behind the proposals.

It is difficult to imagine any other area of society where the government would ask public servants whether they needed more time to do their job properly. When was the last time a prime minister said: "Don't ask me what's needed in our schools - ask the teaching unions"? This is an absurd way to make policy. Imagine if Brown said he had consulted senior headteachers and had agreed that they needed longer holidays and more time out of the classroom for preparation, because they told him so. He could argue that such change would be essential, or the next generation of children would suffer lasting damage, but no one would take him seriously.

The New Statesman has consistently opposed the extension of detention without charge. The government has admitted that thus far no terrorism case in the UK has collapsed due to a lack of time to interrogate suspects or gain access to their computers.

If the Commons vote this month goes the Prime Minister's way, it will not be thanks to the power of argument, but because MPs do not have the appetite to undermine Gordon Brown's authority any further. Yet, many MPs who voted for the government to save the Prime Minister's skin will, like us, hope that the measure is defeated in the Lords by parliamentarians with the courage to vote down draconian anti-terror legislation that offends their principles.

The second time around

We are sure that all readers of the New Statesman would like to join us in congratulating the celebrated travel writer Jan Morris on entering into a civil partnership with her partner, Elizabeth. This is a second wedding in all but name for the happy couple, as they were originally married in 1949, but were forced to divorce after Jan's sex change in 1972. As James Morris, she had covered John Hunt's Everest expedition in 1953; once he became Jan, however, the law would not allow the marriage to continue.

Their story was always a hopeful one. The pair continued living together. "It did not make any difference to me. We still had our family. We just carried on," as Elizabeth put it, demonstrating a touching constancy in circumstances many would have found difficult. How fitting that the courts finally caught up with the law of the heart, a code that recognises no niceties about which sex should be allowed to lie next to which in the marriage bed.

In many ways we seem to be encouraged to be wary today of those who are different: of young people in hoods, of those whose faith may suggest extreme views, of immigrants, whom we now greet with suspicion rather than a friendly welcome.

But Jan and Elizabeth Morris's story shows that we have also become more tolerant. Progressive legislation is sometimes blamed for society's ills. This reminds us of how it can produce truly happy endings, too.

Post your comment

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