42 days: for and against

Last Modified: 11 Jun 2008
By: Channel 4 News

Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg, John Major and the other main players give their arguments in the 42-day detention debate.

Gordon Brown, prime minister

"It is this nature of modern terrorism and the growing complexity of investigations that have led not just the government but the police and the independent reviewer, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to believe there may be circumstances where it is necessary to go beyond 28 days' pre-charge detention.

"I have received much advice in recent weeks. Some have argued that I should drop or significantly water down the 42-day limit. But having considered carefully all the evidence and arguments, I believe that, with all these protections against arbitrary treatment in place, allowing up to 42 days' pre-charge detention in these exceptional terrorist cases is the right way to protect national security."

Source
42-day detention; a fair solution

Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan police

"What we have said repeatedly is that, given the circumstances that the UK has faced over the last few years, the growth in the number of plots, the number of conspirators in each plot and the magnitude of their ambition, a pragmatic inference can be drawn that sooner or later we are going to need more than 28 days."

Source
Evidence to MPs at the committee stage of the bill, 22 April 2008

Association of Chief Police Officers

"We stand by our advice to government that it is possible to foresee circumstances in the future under which the current 28 day limit will prove insufficient.

"The rationale behind this has been well rehearsed and rests on increasing volumes and complexity of evidence, sifting through intelligence and increasingly having to send investigators to other countries.

"Working in other countries takes time and a visit to one country frequently triggers the need to visit others. Closing down these opportunities could mean we fail to pick up a vital piece of evidence or gain intelligence which could allow us to stop an attack. Our investigations have a global reach."

Source
Acpo position on counter-terrorism legislation, 6 June 2008

Peter Clarke, former head of Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism command

"When I was asked, in 2005, by the home affairs select committee how many terrorists I had been obliged to let go through lack of time to investigate, I inwardly despaired. It was the wrong question. We should look forward, not back.

"The fact that we have been able to convict more than 60 terrorists in the last year or so is irrelevant.

"The better question would have been: "Is it likely that there will come a time when the present 28-day limit is insufficient?" The answer would have been, "undoubtedly". That is why we should legislate now, and not in panic in an emergency."

Source
Longer detention is about saving the public

Lord Stevens, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner

"It is the duty of those of us who have been on the front line - losing sleep, working through the night on these cases to thwart attacks - to put forward the argument for this extra power...

"We have achieved considerable success against al-Qaeda, but we cannot take our eye off the ball. The dangers that are out there now are not going away. In a very few cases, and I suspect it will be a small number, the police service will need this power.

"I don't look at it as 42 days and I would not support an automatic jump from 28 to 42 days. But there will be really exceptional cases where the police service will need to go beyond 28 days."

Source
Interview with The Times, 11 June 2008

David Blunkett, former home secretary

"The degree of risk today is an order of magnitude greater than it ever was with the IRA. It is not a 'siege society' we should fear, but refusing to take the measures necessary for our security in the face of suicidal intent."

Source
42 days are necessary - letter to The Times, 10 June 2008

Jonathan Evans, Director General of the Security Service

"Since the Security Service is neither a prosecuting authority nor responsible for criminal investigations, we are not, and never have been, the appropriate body to advise the government on pre-charge detention time limits.

"We have not, therefore, sought to comment publicly or privately on the current proposals, except to say that we recognise the challenge posed for the police service by the increasingly complex and international character of some recent terrorist cases."

Source
Pre-charge detention time limits: statement by Jonathan Evans, 9 June 2008

Lord Goldsmith, former attorney general

"I believe in giving [our intelligence agencies and police] the resources and the tools to do this job... but they do not need the extra time that the enthusiasts for 42 days would provide. The prosecutors who have to make the charging decisions do not seek it, and the police are at best divided on the issue. They are making the present system work and work well.

the police are at best divided on the issue. They are making the present system work and work well.

"So what is the argument for the change? Simply, that it might be needed in the future. Such an approach does not meet the test of necessity. And it risks sending a very dangerous message: that we are willing to sacrifice our fundamental values because it might be a good idea in the future."

Source
We shouldn't hold terror suspects for 42 days, The Telegraph, 1 June 2008

Andrew Dismore, joint human rights committee chair

"The government has not yet made a case based on any evidence that an extension beyond the current 28-day maximum is necessary. We have heard general assertions but no hard facts."

Source
Trigger-happy detention, The Guardian, 6 June 2008

David Davis, shadow home secretary

"We're a country that has seen itself as being a bastion of freedom for hundreds of years and central to that freedom is the right not to be locked up by the state without charge.

"We recognise that we have to make the police's job possible, so I said to the home secretary at least three times in the supposed consensus-building process, show me the evidence, and I'm afraid we were never shown the evidence."

Source
Today, Radio 4, 11 June 2008

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader

"These supposed concessions do not address the fundamental problem - there is not a shred of evidence in favour of extending the period of pre-charge detention.

Source
Brown must not be allowed to erode civil liverties, Lib Dems website