Unwanted power

The absurdity of the government's position on extending detention without charge is highlighted today by the stance of Elish Angiolini, Scotland's Lord Advocate. Tomorrow MPs will be asked to back legislation that would enable police to seize terror suspects and keep them locked up for six weeks without charge and without even telling them why they are being investigated. But who wants this power? Not the Conservatives, nor the Liberal Democrats, nor many Labour backbenchers who all believe it tramples on precious human rights won over centuries. Not MI5, nor Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken MacDonald, nor former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, none of whom have experienced the need for it, even in the immensely complex 2006 investigation into the plot to blow up transatlantic airliners. And, as she tells The Herald today, the Lord Advocate agrees with them. There even appear to be dissenters among the ranks of senior police officers.

Any use of the extra detention powers would have to be supported by a joint report between a chief constable and the DPP in England or the Crown Office in Scotland. The government promises that this power would be used only in the most unusual of circumstances - "the exception to the exception". But, given that both Sir Ken and Ms Angiolini appear to oppose the extension of these powers, this legislation could be a dead letter before the Queen's signature is even dry. This rather adds weight to the notion that this measure has more to do with government machismo than keeping citizens safe. In recent days, the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has been wooing backbenchers with "concessions". The main one is the reduction from 30 days to seven for the time limit for parliamentary scrutiny. But without evidence or charges to scrutinise, how can anyone be expected to make such a judgment? The central questions remain the same: is it just and would it make us any safer if the government gets its wish? Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty is right to say: "In democracies where people are presumed innocent, we arrest on suspicion, charge with evidence and convict after proof." We tamper with these principles at our peril.

Police officers sometimes act in good faith on false information and sometimes simply make mistakes. Comparisons with other countries are unhelpful because the threshold of evidence required for police to charge suspects in Britain is higher than many overseas jurisdictions. That is why it is unfair to compare Britain's current 28-day threshold with the 48 hours allowed in Germany and the US, for example. However, as many of the critics of the 42-day limit have argued, this measure is so draconian that it risks creating a sense of burning injustice, especially when innocent people are released from six weeks behind bars without any explanation. This is precisely the concern voiced by British Muslim leaders yesterday.

Make no mistake. This is a hearts and minds struggle against militants who pervert Islam. Meeting the terrorist threat with government oppression merely plays into al Qaeda's hands.