Brown sets out plan for tough new terror laws

Gordon Brown is certain to infuriate the left wing of the Labour Party as he sets out his new plans to tackle terrorism. The plans he intends to announce seek to outdo Tony Blair in their fervour to please the Daily Mail reader.

The plans include:

· An extension of the 28-day limit on detention without charge. Blair had wanted to extend this to 90 days, but had to limit it to 28 after a Commons revolt.

· Making terrorism an aggravating factor in sentencing, giving judges greater powers to punish terrorism within the framework of the existing criminal law.

· Ending the ban on questioning by police after a terrorist suspect has been charged. This would be subject to judicial oversight to ensure that it is correctly and sparingly used.

· Moving towards allowing evidence from telephone-tapping to be admissible as evidence in court by holding a Privy Council review into whether the law should be changed.

· Increasing the security budget, which has already doubled to more than £2bn a year after 11 September 2001, in the forthcoming spending review when a single security budget will be unveiled.

Most of us have long argued that evidence from telephone tapping should be allowed to be put forward as part of the prosecution's case against terrorist suspects, but it is the extension of the 28 day detention without charge that will cause Brown the most problems. Perhaps he feels that he will enjoy some kind of honeymoon period - in which he can get the party to vote for things that they have expressly voted against in the past - however, it is the very fact that the party have expressly voted against this before that makes raising the subject again such a high risk strategy.

There is no hope that Brown - as Blair relied on so much in the past - can rely on Tory votes to pass this legislation. The Tories were as opposed to extending the 28 day detention without charge as the Labour left were.

However, Brown appears to think that he has this argument won:

The Chancellor believes it is possible to win support for increasing the 28-day limit if there is stronger judicial oversight of any decisions to extend an individual's detention on a week-by-week basis and an annual report to parliament on the use of the powers. But Brown believes there is a need to extend detention because of the volume of international evidence which accrues in such investigations, most of which can be difficult to obtain from computers.

Brown said: 'Because we believe in the civil liberties of the individual, we must also strengthen accountability to parliament and independent bodies overseeing the police, not subjecting people to arbitrary treatment. The world has changed, so we need tougher security. We must recognise there is a group of people we must isolate who are determined to attack. Our security must be strengthened, but we must also strengthen the accountability of our institutions.'

He's going to have a fight on his hands when it comes to this. The police have let it be known that they would prefer a ninety day period when they can hold someone without charge, although I notice that Brown simply calls for an extension on the present 28 day period without specifying how long that extension should be.

Most people objected to 90 days on the grounds that this is the equivalent of giving individuals a six month prison sentence (allowing for three months off for good behaviour) without proving them guilty of any crime.

Perhaps Brown is seeking to take on the party just as Blair took on the party on the subject of Clause IV. The main difference there is that Blair took on a demoralised party, eager after eighteen years of Tory rule to do whatever it took to regain power, and that Brown is taking on a party that is demoralised by the lurch to the right that Blair subjected them to.

That's what makes Brown's gamble so dangerous. He's taking on a battle that no-one is quite sure that he can win.

Indeed, he's beginning his Premiership by taking on a battle that many on the left hope that he will lose.

That's hardly a good start.

Click title for full article.