Being a Lib Dem Minister in Government has both its pleasures and its downsides. One of the downsides is that if anything hits the headlines concerning civil liberties there are some in the Party who instantly assume that Lib Dem ministers have been passive and quiescent whilst human rights are trampled under foot. The case of David Miranda, and more broadly what we are doing regarding the use of the Schedule 7 powers which were used to detain him at Heathrow is a good case in point.
I’ve read with interest the views of a wide range of Liberal Democrats, both here on Lib Dem Voice and further afield. It is clear that many Liberal Democrats, understandably, feel deeply uneasy about the detainment of someone who was travelling on behalf of a journalist. The freedom of the press is an essential liberty, and the work of investigative journalists plays an important role in holding government and private organisations to account.
It is also important, however, that despite this sense of unease, we respond to the facts and not hypothetical scenarios. That is why Liberal Democrats working in the Coalition have been very clear that we are awaiting the report of David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. David Anderson is in a unique position. He has access to the most secret information, is an experienced lawyer, and is able to make a clear, professional and non-partisan judgement about what constitutes an abuse of anti-terrorism powers. As a party which cares deeply about protecting civil liberties, it is important we await his verdict on the detention of David Miranda.
But there is a broader and very important point here, and one which goes back to the overbearing curtailment of civil liberties which we saw during the last Labour government. This is why I have been so surprised in recent days to hear Labour speaking out in favour of civil liberties. I have many memories of the long nights Liberal Democrat MPs and Peers endured to fight the Labour government during their intrusive, prolonged and unnecessary legislative drive to limit British civil liberties. The Liberal Democrats should be rightly proud of the successes we have had in this government, such as the passing of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. But, inevitably, we are still working to amend other pieces of legislation.
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is one of these powers which we are seeking to limit. It is clearly a broad and over-bearing power. Examining people at ports and airports is necessary for public safety and UK security, but at present this power goes too far. In December 2012 the Home Office undertook a public consultation to examine the use of Schedule 7 powers, and David Anderson QC also made a series of recommendations to reform the use of these powers. At present, we have proposed a number of changes to Schedule 7 in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill is at report stage in the House of Commons, and Jeremy Browne MP is working on the Liberal Democrat side of the Coalition to navigate the Bill through Parliament.
The proposed changes to the powers include:
* A reduction in the maximum period of detainment from 9 to 6 hours
* The extension of the right to have a person informed of their detention
* The right to consult privately with a solicitor when detained at a port (currently only available when someone is detained under Schedule 7 at a police station)
* Examination beyond one hour will require formal detention, ensuring access to legal advice
* The introduction of a requirement for a detention to be periodically reviewed
* A requirement to make provision in the statutory code of practice about the training of examining or review officers
* The repeal of the power to take an intimate sample
* And the introduction of an express provision for the copying and retention of information from a seized item, for example the call history information stored on a mobile phone.
These changes will reduce the potential for this power to be a misused; will protect the rights of those the power is applied to; and crucially still ensures that police at UK borders are capable of ensuring the safety of UK citizens. As someone who is proud of the achievements of the Liberal Democrats in Government, I look forward to this Bill passing over to the House of Lords, and having the chance to walk through the division lobby with my fellow Liberal Democrat Peers in support of these changes.
I recognise the serious concerns raised over the detention of David Miranda, and await David Anderson’s review. But importantly, Schedule 7 is a power which needs reform, and one which the Liberal Democrats have the opportunity to do so as part of the Coalition. Let me assure Liberal Democrats that those of us in Government will work to ensure that happens.
* Tom McNally is Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords and a Minister of State for Justice
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Fraser's West End ward surgeries later today #dundeewestend
What's next?
Steve Winwood on working with Viv Stanshall
Firebird
Starmer making a mistake over Single Market - Davey
Reviewing the general election
John Waller
Chris Moore
Michael McDowall
Geoff Reid
David Symonds
52 Comments
Surely the reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in or actively assisting actual terrorism (as opposed to, say, journalism aimed at exposing the excesses of the state) might be added to the list of necessary changes to Sch 7?
What GPPurnell said.
The gaping hole which this case has highlighted is to do with the apparently unlimited application of this power. Surely we need to include a requirement that there be reasonable grounds for suspicion of terrorist activity before these powers can be used?
I’m quite concerned about the reports that Schedule 7 doesn’t contain any reasonable suspicion language, unlike most of the rest of law that surrounds detention by the police. Why not?
This is another of those articles that is, frankly, insulting to Party members. ‘You’re being emotional: calm down, dears, and blame Labour’ is its message.
Awaiting David Anderson’s report on what you have done is not the same as carefully evaluating whether it is right to do something in the first place. Particularly when that something is a co-ordinated attack against whistleblowers exposing a mass surveillance programme, and a drive-by against freedom of the press.
A genuine contender for the worst article on LDV this or any other year.
Terrorism needs to be defined in far more precise terms. At present we are all be treated as terrorists until proven otherwise by the UKG and USG. The police can label any act terrorism if it falls into the equally broad catch-all of “against National Security” which is the primary mantra of the unaccountable secret services both here and in the USA.
I would remind everyone that the current narrative is that the NSA documents are stolen data that could bring harm to the State. It is unknown at present (even by the NSA) exactly what files are in the possession of Snowden or Miranda or the Guardian – the only certainty is that the majority of the data was in fact stolen from domestic and foreign citizens by the illegal use of mass surveillance systems. This is in fact a repatriation of our own illegally obtained intellectual property.
‘roo
While I agree that reasonable suspicion should be required, in this case surely there is reasonable suspicion that Miranda was carrying Snowden-acquired data on UK/US espionage activities in “repressive regimes”. This would itself be an act of espionage, and surely we can’t be demanding that there are no effective laws against espionage.
This case, for me, hinges not on whether the actions were legal – because the law is wrong anyway – but on what data Miranda was carrying, and whether the security services claims about the sensitivity of that data can be tested in any way.
And it does seem to be out of proportion to get so upset about one case of one person engaged in what might be described as espionage, when there are 60,000 a year stopped under this power, none of whom that we have heard of have turned out to be terrorists.
We should not dismiss the positive improvements that are being proposed – before the MIranda affair. They are welcome – but I am not sure that they are relevant to whether the party has reacted properly or adequately in the past few days. (Whether they are sufficient in the light of this affair is something that their Lordships will no doubt debate in dure course).
I too remember trooping through the division lobbies on long nights to oppose a lot of Labour’s draconian legislation in this and other areas. Again I am not sure that is relevant to our party’s reactions in the past few days.
It is sinister that the London Plod have now announced that they are conducting a criminal investigation in this affair (what part/s of it is not clear). Have they really gone mad? Or is it at the behest of mad Tory politicians? Can we now look forward to the arrest of Guardian journalists, or even of the editor?
Tony Greaves
Agree with GPPurnell, above.
It does not seem at all liberal to equate journalism aimed at exposing the excesses of the state surveillance with ‘espionage’, Joe Otten! Even if Miranda was carrying such material, which seems unlikely, given that he was released (eventually).
The question for the Home Secretary is “why are your highly-paid spooks wasting time chasing leaked data, when it would surely be more effective to focus on those engaged in actual terrorism?”
I’ve seen nothing in the past few days to make me think this was anything other than an attempt to intimidate those who were acting in good faith to expose excessive and unnecessary state surveillance. They were using data leaked in good faith by people (another, but hardly distinguishable for current purposes) state approved to assist the spooks, but whose conscience so troubled them that they, at great personal cost to themselves, felt compelled to leak it.
@Joe Otten:
“While I agree that reasonable suspicion should be required, in this case surely there is reasonable suspicion that Miranda was carrying Snowden-acquired data on UK/US espionage activities in “repressive regimes”. This would itself be an act of espionage,”
Not so. Espionage is the taking of the information and making it available, or potentially available, to enemies. The act of obtaining the information was done ages ago, the transmission so far has not necessarily been to the UK’s citizen’s enemies. But possession of ‘secret’ information 3rd or 300000003rd hand is not likely to be pursuable legally to any useful purpose even if technically possible.
Where the waters become muddy is if the information exposes unlawful actions (as opposed to just ‘undesirable’ actions) by any part of the executive. Which is the greater crime? Doing the bad things or exposing the bad things?
If our government wants to make laws like this against espionage, let them try so to do through the proper channels. But let us not see pathetic defences of them utilising measures designed to be utilised against terrorism in ‘hot pursuit’ against alleged ‘espionage'(sic).
I have asked this before – could we try to think a little more clearly, Tony? Phrases like the “London Plod” are like”Pleb”, aren’t they? The high and mighty pouring scorn and contempt down on humble people doing an honest job. To use a word that Tony has himself used, it’s a disgrace.
The practical reality is that many journalists have more than one source of income. It’s unlikely that Rusbridger is so naïve as to not realise that he doesn’t really know what Miranda/Greenwald are up to all of the time. His words are careful, perhaps for that reason.
… that one was for Tony Greaves, not Tony Dawson … apologies to both of you if you got confused
“Jeremy Browne MP is working on” … {raises eyebrows instinctively}
Well, Nick Clegg has been *very* clear about how much he supports the detention of Miranda. Which trumps your rhetoric about how the Lib Dems (for whom I voted in the last election, to my shame) care about civil liberties. We know what the party stands for now: whatever the Tories do.
The only redeeming thing is that I will never be fooled by you again.
So the spooks trample over hard won liberties, our political leaders say nothing or talk in vacuous cliche, and the police begin criminal proceedings against those who report these outrages.
My masters, are you mad?
“It is clear that many Liberal Democrats, understandably, feel deeply uneasy about the detainment of someone who was travelling on behalf of a journalist. The freedom of the press is an essential liberty”
Though surely the press should be expected to obey the law like anybody else, so the real issues are whether the police had any grounds to suspect that Miranda was participating in criminal activity, and whether it is right that such activity should be criminal in the first place – and despite all the outrage expressed this week, those are questions absolutely none of us knows the answers to yet.
” I have many memories of the long nights Liberal Democrat MPs and Peers endured to fight the Labour government during their intrusive, prolonged and unnecessary legislative drive to limit British civil liberties.”
Do you remember the night Lib Dem MPs all abstained rather than vote against the final reading of the Terrorism Act (2000) – the Act which gave us schedule 7 in the first place?
As an aside, I like the “Number Crunching” piece in this week’s Private Eye :-
“1 – Detention of Guardian journalist’s partner described by paper as ‘profound escalation of attacks on journalism’.
120 – Arrests so far of tabloid journalists and sources in raids on family homes which followed Guardian’s phone-hacking revelations.”
I too look forward to clarification from David Anderson QC and through possible legal action of whether Schedule 7 was properly invoked in the Miranda case, although I am perhaps more able than Tom McNally to express deep scepticism on that point. But I warmly welcome the reminder by Tom – a true Liberal – of what is already in the ASBCP Bill on reform of Sch 7, a coalition achievement in improving significantly on Labour’s Terrorism Act which might well not be happening without LibDems in government. (Gareth, your remarks are uncharacteristically ungenerous!)
But it would be good if LibDems ministers could also examine the scope for more safeguards on issues highlighted by David Anderson in his reports that are not covered in the Bill eg whether there should be a requirement for reasonable suspicion; whether the power to detain someone against their will without arresting them should continue; whether it should remain a criminal offence to refuse to answer questions asked during examination; whether interviews should be recorded; the use (if any) to which notes of non-recorded interviews can be put in subsequent legal proceedings; the justification for search powers extend to copying mobile phone and laptop data; reminders to detainees of the possibility to make complaints; and the availability of legal aid.
My aim in any conference motion that we might pass on this topic would thus be to strengthen the hand of Jeremy Browne and our other LibDem ministers to press for strengthened safeguards picking up some of these points.
@Chris H
“Well, Nick Clegg has been *very* clear about how much he supports the detention of Miranda.”
That’s not what it says here: https://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-cleggs-office-speaks-out-on-miranda-detention-and-destruction-of-guardian-data-35823.html
@Stuart Mitchell
“Do you remember the night Lib Dem MPs all abstained rather than vote against the final reading of the Terrorism Act (2000) – the Act which gave us schedule 7 in the first place?”
As the Terrorism Bill contained 131 clauses and 7 schedules, if you agree with parts of it and disagree with others the logical thing would be to abstain on 3rd reading.
The question has been asked: “Who could replace Nick Clegg as leader?” It seems to me that Sarah Ludford could now make a strong claim after her excellent contribution to this debate.
“This would itself be an act of espionage, and surely we can’t be demanding that there are no effective laws against espionage.”
I’m reasonably certain that there are plenty of effective laws against espionage. Question is – why weren’t they used in this instance?
@Simon Shaw
How many MPs agree or disagree with every provision of a particular Bill? If every MP followed your logic we’d scarcely get any of them voting on third readings at all.
Are you suggesting that Lib Dem MPs fought hard against schedule 7 at the time?
@Stuart Mitchell
“How many MPs agree or disagree with every provision of a particular Bill? If every MP followed your logic we’d scarcely get any of them voting on third readings at all.”
If MPs are supporters of the government they are normally expected to support the Bill whatever their personal misgivings. That is what appears to have happened here, with all bar 3 Labour MPs (I seem to recall) voting for the Bill on 3rd reading.
Simon Shaw
“If you agree with parts of [a Bill] and disagree with others the logical thing would be to abstain on 3rd reading.”
No, that’s not logical at all. If you agree with parts and disagree with others you make a decision about how important to you the relevant parts are and vote accordingly. Abstaining is pretty much a cop-out every time. (For an individual MP it’s arguably a reasonable way of registering unhappiness with a party whipped vote without going so far as voting against; but for a party to decide to abstain there’s less justification.)
“If MPs are supporters of the government they are normally expected to support the Bill whatever their personal misgivings. “
Obviously irrelevant here, as the Lib Dems weren’t part of the government in 2000!
Graham’s remark makes me look at the calendar – is it April 1st?!!
Seriously, this for me is not a ‘whack the leadership’ issue. I think Nick’s explanation of his role over the Guardian hard drives has integrity, even if there can be valid debate about that episode. What concerns me, as it has for at least the last decade – it is almost exactly 10 years since I sponsored the first European Parliament hearing on Guantanamo – is the whole broad issue of accountability and respect for the rule of law and civil liberties of the police and intelligence services, and the legislative and parliamentary framework for seeking to ensure that. I believe that framework has proved seriously inadequate – I read the transcript of Evan Davis’s Today prog interview with ISCE chair Sir Malcolm Rifkind, hilarious – and the Miranda case just encapsulates so much if what has gone wrong and can perhaps be the catalyst for a public and parliamentary debate that the Americans, for all their faults, are currently having.
@Malcolm Todd
“No, that’s not logical at all. If you agree with parts and disagree with others you make a decision about how important to you the relevant parts are and vote accordingly. Abstaining is pretty much a cop-out every time.”
You couldn’t be more wrong, Malcolm. I don’t know if you are or have ever been a councillor, but abstaining is certainly normal practice in local authorities in comparable circumstances (or at least it has been on the five local authorities of which I have been a member).
Particularly when you are in opposition on a local authority and a motion is proposed which you agree with in part, I would firstly expect you to call for the motion to be taken in parts. If that is not allowed abstaining might well be the sensible course of action.
As the Lib Dems were in opposition in Parliament in 2000, abstaining may well have been the appropriate course to take.
“If MPs are supporters of the government they are normally expected to support the Bill whatever their personal misgivings. Obviously irrelevant here, as the Lib Dems weren’t part of the government in 2000!”
As I was talking about Labour MPs I don’t follow you.
If the Americans are having that debate, Sarah, it is worth noting that it is because of the bravery and integrity (whether wise or not) of many many whistleblowers and journalists who have raised these issues, often at great personal cost to themselves. I hope you would agree that we must not allow the state or the security services to label them ‘terrorists’ or even ‘friends of terrorists’. If the state needs powers to curtail the activities of whistleblowers and journalists who can be shown to be inadvertently helping terrorists (for it is unlikely that they would do so deliberately) such powers need to be exercised with the maximum of care and independent oversight possible.
Just because it’s a common thing to do doesn’t mean it’s not a cop-out! But even if you accept that abstention is the right principled response in certain circumstances (which, on the whole, I don’t — unless you actually have no opinion on a measure and don’t believe it will make a ha’porth of difference whether it’s passed or not), it’s certainly not the “logical” response to being faced with a measure with which you agree in part and disagree in part. You have to take a view on what matters most; I presume that’s what the party did at the time.
I must have misunderstood your point about government MPs abstaining — I thought we were talking about why Lib Dems didn’t vote against this bill at the time. That Labour overwhelmingly supported it is hardly surprising…
@Malcolm Todd
I’m sorry it’s not clearer. Suppose there is a Council motion or a Bill with just two elements: A and B. A is eminently sensible and B is appalling.
If you vote for the motion or the Bill, then the problem is that your political opponents will say “Those disgraceful Lib Dems voted for B.”
If you vote against the motion or the Bill, then the danger is that your political opponents will say “Lib Dems claim to support A, but then they go and vote against it.”
Abstaining carries the risk of accusations that “Lib Dems can’t make up their minds”, but at least that then leaves open the potential to explain that it was because we support A but oppose B.
“One of the downsides is that if anything hits the headlines concerning civil liberties there are some in the Party who instantly assume that Lib Dem ministers have been passive and quiescent whilst human rights are trampled under foot.”
Nonsense. There has been nothing “instant” about this process. ~A large part of the problem is that days went past without any word from Nick Clegg or any other senior Lib Dem on Miranda or the Guardian.
If you leave such a vacuum then people inside the party and beyond are bound to make up their minds for themselves – and you may not like the conclusions they come to.
Is there really no one in the party’s communications operation who understands this?
I know the party press office is under-staffed at present and it is holiday time, but I pointed out in relevant quarters 3 days ago that the statement on Miranda case was not up there and it is STILL not, nor is the statement about Nick and the Guardian tapes. No doubt everything is findable on newswires (or LDV indeed) but if we want to maximise our visibility, keeping the press section of the website up to date might be a place to start….
Helpful to have the proposed amendments to schedule seven listed out.
But do they meet the concerns exposed by the Miranda case? What additional changes can we suggest to improve things further? David Anderson might even find it helpful to know what concerned people are thinking…
And yes the problem for many in the party has been the lack of swift information…
@Stuart Mitchell
Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 was not new legislation. It replaced the almost identically-worded Schedule 5 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 which can be found here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/4/schedule/5/1996-04-03?timeline=true.
If you look at the old Schedule 5 to the 1989 Act, you’ll notice that paragraph 2(4) allowed for the detention of a person for up to twelve hours, and for a further twelve hours if they had a reasonable suspicion that the person was involved in terrorism. Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act was a huge improvement, reducing that twelve/twenty-four hour period to nine hours. If the Lib Dems had voted against the 2000 Act, as you seem to be suggesting we should have, then the period of detention would be twelve/twenty-four hours instead of nine. How would that be better? The Terrorism Act 2000 was a needed piece of legislation to replace the temporary and piecemeal anti-terrorism legislation that was on the statute books. Much of the Act was a consolidation matter which was entirely admirable. In some places, the Bill improved on existing legislation and in others it was too authoritarian. In such circumstances, it was entirely reasonable for the Lib Dems to abstain and I really struggle to see why you think that was problematic.
Lord McNally’s post lists some considerable improvements to Schedule 7 which we can be proud of. But, as Sarah Ludford has articulated extremely well, there are further safeguards that need to be introduced and which have been recommended by David Anderson QC. Even if the government is resistant to those further safeguards (and I suspect resistance will come from Theresa May rather than Jeremy Browne, Nick Clegg, or Tom McNally), an emergency motion will strongly encourage Liberal Democrat backbenchers to vote in favour of amendments which would introduce those safeguards. If the Tories and Labour vote against them, then they will show themselves to be as hostile to civil liberties as they have always been, but I see this as a real opportunity to show our credentials as a party committed to civil liberties and where the public, as the recent opinion polls have shown, are on our side.
@Edis Bevan,
I believe that these safeguards would. As Schedule 7 makes clear, questioning (and therefore, by logical implication. detaining someone to question them) can only be carried out to determine whether the person “appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b)” of the 2000 Act. A person falls within section 40(1)(b) if they are a terrorist, i.e. a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
Now, where is there any evidence whatsoever which suggests that David Miranda is a terrorist? If David Anderson QC’s report comes out and says that there was such evidence (even if it cannot be disclosed) and that the questioning was therefore based on a reasonable suspicion, then the police may have been justified in what they were doing. However, I agree with Charlie Falconer who wrote on this issue a couple of days ago here, and who concluded that David Miranda cannot possibly have been considered a terrorist: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/terrorism-act-david-miranda-detention.
The police are on very thin grounds for detaining David Miranda as it is, and they should have stopped questioning him and released him as soon as they were sure that he was not a terrorist (which would have taken just a few minutes). However if there had been a “reasonable suspicion” criterion to be met before there could be detention, then I cannot see how they could have detained him at all.
“The police are on very thin grounds for detaining David Miranda as it is, and they should have stopped questioning him and released him as soon as they were sure that he was not a terrorist (which would have taken just a few minutes). However if there had been a “reasonable suspicion” criterion to be met before there could be detention, then I cannot see how they could have detained him at all.”
As it is, their questioning should have been confined to trying to determine whether he was a terrorist. They would have had no legal authority to ask him questions for any other reasons while he was being detained. Perhaps it’s not surprising that he was reportedly refused material that would have allowed him to take notes of the questions he was asked.
@Chris
Indeed; and, in all fairness to the police, in the vast majority of cases they spend very little time questioning people. The 2012 report by David Anderson QC showed that 96% of people were held for less than an hour, and of that 96%, the vast majority are held for less than 15 minutes. It should not take long at all to question someone sufficiently to discover whether they are a potential terrorist or not. I simply cannot fathom how it took 9 hours for the police to decide that David Miranda was not a terrorist when the rest of the world took about 9 seconds. Miranda’s account suggests that instead the police spent 9 hours badgering and threatening him and asking him entirely irrelevant questions. I’ll be very interested to read Anderson’s report on this and I think it’s a real credit to him that he’s producing one so quickly.
Anyone who takes only 9 seconds to determine whether a flagged suspect is a terrorist or not needs their head examined. They’d certainly be thrown out of any police force, and possibly lynched like an Indian train driver if their negligence led to serious consequences. Do terrorists have Terrorist written in the foreheads? Did anyone suspect those nice Tsarnaev brothers?
“Anyone who takes only 9 seconds to determine whether a flagged suspect is a terrorist or not needs their head examined.”
But the point is that – as far as I have seen – no one in authority has claimed that David Miranda has ever been a terrorist suspect, ‘flagged’ or otherwise. On the contrary, the Home Secretary – who is obviously in a position to know why he was detained – has sought to defend his detention on the (legally insufficient) ground that he was in possession of information that could be useful to terrorists. If she had been told that he was actually a terrorist suspect, she would surely have said so.
That would be a different point, though. 🙂 Would it not be wise to await the results of the QC’s investigation, rather than rely on the suspected terrorist and known courier Miranda’s account of things, or not as the case may be?
Clear Thinker
“Would it not be wise to await the results of the QC’s investigation, rather than rely on the suspected terrorist and known courier Miranda’s account of things, or not as the case may be?”
I think you need to read my comment more carefully.
Chris
“But the point is that – as far as I have seen – no one in authority has claimed that David Miranda has ever been a terrorist suspect, ‘flagged’ or otherwise. On the contrary, the Home Secretary – who is obviously in a position to know why he was detained – has sought to defend his detention on the (legally insufficient) ground that he was in possession of information that could be useful to terrorists. If she had been told that he was actually a terrorist suspect, she would surely have said so.”
Well quite. The only claim of this sort I have seen in print is that by the one who calls himself ‘Clear Thinker’, directly above. Not wise in my opinion to make any such accusation, but then I don’t hide under a pseudonym. Have LDV noted what has been alleged here?
Chris and Steve Griffiths are spot on. What Theresa May has actually said is “if the police believe somebody has in their possession highly sensitive stolen information which could help terrorists which could lead to a loss of lives then it is right that the police act.” Never has she said that he was a terrorist, a suspected terrorist, or had anything whatsoever to do with terrorism save that he was in possession of material which terrorists would find useful. Given that nobody has said otherwise, I’m astounded to see you refer to him as a “suspected terrorist” and I’d be interested to know on what evidence you’re basing such a serious assertion.
We’ll perhaps find out soon whether he was suspected of being a terrorist in the legal sense. But we should probably not expect a police interview of a suspected terrorist to necessarily be pleasant for the suspect. Instead we should understand and accept that it will indeed be unpleasant to some extent, and will indeed be inconvenient. Part of the purpose of developing safeguards is to define an acceptable level of unpleasantness, isn’t it? And as mutually supportive citizens we have some duty to tolerate occasional discomfort for the good of all.
I imagine that one of the ways that an interview tries to assess a suspect is by assessing the suspect’s reactions to questions, and perhaps the consistency of the answers given. Should we regulate this? If Miranda is the type of person who panics easily, his answers could easily have become inconsistent and therefore seemed suspect. That would be one possible answer to the question of why the police took 9 hours to decide. Of course there are probably many other possibilities, which is why we should perhaps wait for the QC before jumping to conclusions.
These matters are not frivolous for a suspect, but they are also not frivolous from a security viewpoint. The recent news is that the Snowden leaked data includes the location of a spy centre in the Middle East. Whatever we may think about electronic spying, that leak would likely put everyone who works at that centre at risk – for instance risk if suicide bombing. Why is it that people assume that Snowden/Greenwald are authorities on what should and should not be leaked, and that everyone in some position of authority is bad?
@Simon Shaw
We’ll have to disagree on whether abstaining is the new opposing.
You still haven’t answered my other question. How hard (if it all) did Lib Dems fight against schedule 7 when it was making its way through Parliament back in 1999/2000?
@Stuart Mitchell
“You still haven’t answered my other question. How hard (if it all) did Lib Dems fight against schedule 7 when it was making its way through Parliament back in 1999/2000?”
I have absolutely no idea. I assume the information is out there somewhere if you know where to look.
Talk about 24/7 News! The Guardian now appears to claim that the Independent’s information about the Middle East spy centre was leaked from the government itself. A claim that the Independent appears to deny. I guess we had just better wait for the QC.
Clear Thinker
“Of course there are probably many other possibilities, which is why we should perhaps wait for the QC before jumping to conclusions.”
I can only suggest that you should abide by your own advice.
I’ll try, Steve, but I’m a bit unreliable in that regard! I wonder if …., well, no, let’s wait 🙂
“Given that nobody has said otherwise, I’m astounded to see you refer to him as a “suspected terrorist” and I’d be interested to know on what evidence you’re basing such a serious assertion.”
I think ‘Clear Thinker’ was simply trying to provoke me by responding to my post – pointing out that there was no evidence that Miranda was suspected of being a terrorist – by completely ignoring what I had written and referring to him in those terms. But I’m afraid she will have to be more subtle than that – and come up with something worth arguing with – if she wants to draw me into an argument.
What is more depressing is that LDV continues to delete comments critical of the party line but which in no way contravene the publicly stated rules, while letting through comments that back Clegg but which border on the defamatory. If only the party’s problems were limited to Clegg, one could hope for a solution post-2015. As it is, what hope is there?
@Stuart Mitchell
I did actually answer this question of yours earlier in this thread so I’m disappointed that you chose to ignore it.
There was an all-party consensus in the late 1990s that the piecemeal and temporary anti-terrorism legislation needed replacing with a permanent, consolidated statute. That was the principle behind the Terrorism Act 2000 which, in many respects, simply repeated existing legislation. Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 repeated, near identically, Schedule 5 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which it replaced. Schedule 5 to the 1989 Act allowed for detention for up to twelve hours (and a further twelve hours if there were reasonable grounds for suspecting involvement in terrorism).
In Lord Lloyd’s report on terrorism in 1996 he suggested that this period of time should go down to six hours but that there should not be the addition of any “reasonable suspicion” criterion before detention. The Labour government agreed that the period of time should be reduced and proposed nine hours. The Tories felt that it should be retained at twenty-four hours. The Lib Dems supported the reduction to nine hours. In that respect, Schedule 7 was an improvement to the existing regime. Perhaps the party should have pressed for further safeguards but (i) Labour and the Tories both felt that the Schedule should not be changed in any other respect, and (ii) Lord Lloyd’s report on terrorism legislation specifically called for there to be no introduction of a “reasonable suspicion” criterion. Given those circumstances, I wouldn’t, however, have expected the Lib Dems to “fight” against Schedule 7 as it improved the existing law, and I struggle to understand why you think they should have.
@Tony Dawson
But we are not talking of mere possession of information, but of exporting it in a covert manner. I take the point that the ‘threat to life’ angle may just be a pretext for going after a whistleblower. But I don’t see how we can know that it is.
And if this information carries a threat to life, exporting it is a terrorist act as defined by the law, albeit in defiance of the English language.
@Simon Shaw
I’ve already looked, and all the evidence I’ve looked at so far (the Commons votes, Simon Hughes’ speech during the debate) suggests that the Lib Dems did nothing to oppose the introduction of schedule 7.
But if you come across anything to the contrary, do please share.
@Richard Wingfield
Thank you for the background information, which is of great interest.
I’m not suggesting that the Lib Dems should have fought against the introduction of schedule 7. In my opinion, schedule 7 is perfectly proportionate as it is and I have no problem with it. I just think, given the number of Lib Dems now attacking schedule 7 and adding it to their list of terrible authoritarian Labour laws, it’s worth noting exactly how Lib Dems responded to its introduction, and indeed how they have reacted to it during the 13 years it’s been in operation.
Many of those who are criticising schedule 7 for allowing Miranda to be arrested are also claiming that Miranda’s detention was actually unlawful and should not have been permitted by schedule 7 anyway. This is clearly illogical. If schedule 7 does not allow for Miranda’s detention, then the problem is clearly not with schedule 7 but with the people who misused it.