The Crux of the Issue
Iain Dale got there before me:
Having worked for an MP doing constituency casework (OK, it was 21 years ago!) I know what kind of confidential problems constituents approach their MP with. Imagine you had written to Damian Green a few months ago with a complaint about the Police and he had taken it up for you. Imagine how you would feel this morning, knowing that in all likelihood some anonymous Detective inside Special Branch is at this moment trawling your correspondence on his hard disc.
Imagine you were a battered wife, seeking advice on how to get redress against your violent husband, who just happens to be a Police Officer. That correspondence would now be being read by a Police Officer.
Imagine you are a constituent wanting urgent help on an immigration case, or that your benefits have been miscalculated and you are urgently waiting for an answer. You won’t be getting one very quickly…
Presumably Speaker Michael Martin thought about this when he gave the Police permission to enter Damian Green’s office. This is why people across ALL parties are so concerned at what has happened. It’s not Conservative v Labour. It’s about Parliament v The State.
The issue ultimately is not about the guilt or innocence of Damian Green, although the law under which he is being held raises some serious questions. The problem is that the police have acted in such a manner as to threaten the confidentiality of privileged communications between an MP and his constituents. Anyone who has used a BlackBerry or an email client will know that it is almost impossible not to sift through emails determining which are subject to privilege and which aren’t without violating said privilege in the process. That is why the law and the policing have to work on the presumption that the confidentiality of an MP’s communication is more important than the desire to get results at any cost.
The very fact that the police have cast their net so wide as to include taking love letters between Mr. Green and his wife suggests that they have not acted in a manner that respects the basic principle that the privacy of communications between an MP and his constituents are sacrosanct. If they are not afforded the same level of protection as communications with a doctor, lawyer or priest, then the functioning of Parliament is weakened.
Parliamentary privilege cannot be suspended for mere political or policing expedience. The Speaker and the Serjeant-at-Arms had no authority to do so unilaterally.
Sphere: Related Content+++ Boris Fires Blair +++
Well, not strictly “fired”, but as close as you could get.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7648664.stm
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has announced his resignation after three years in the job.
He said London mayor Boris Johnson, who took over as chairman of the police authority on Wednesday, had told him he wanted a “change in leadership”.
Sir Ian said that “without the mayor’s backing I do not think I can continue in the job”.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said deputy commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson will take over as acting head of the Met.
Sir Ian has faced criticism over the racism row involving the Met’s most senior Asian officer Tarique Ghaffur.
There have also been questions about his handling of events surrounding the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
The Brazilian was shot on the London Underground in July 2005 by police marksmen, who had mistaken him for a suicide bomber.
Sir Ian has denied any wrongdoing over an inquiry into the use of public money to pay a close friend to advise him.
UPDATE: Boris told him to go.
Sphere: Related Content42 Days and the Upper House
I will be covering the House of Commons debate of this Bill using coveritlive next week. More details closer to the time.
When the clearly draconian proposal of detention of suspected terrorists without charge for a maximum period of ninety days was watered down to twenty-eight, I predicted that the government had unfinished business. 28 days was the thin end of an authoritarian wedge. The Government would wait sufficient time for the measure to normalise before pushing for further extensions. This represents a rolling back of the moderate victory 28 days represented.
The arguments in favour simply do not stand up to criticism. Notwithstanding the disquiet about the measure within the service, the argument that “the police want it” is not sufficient in a liberal democracy. Like any corporate institution (in the Huntingdonian sense), their perception of what the country needs is coloured by their own peculiar experience and ethos. The duty of the politician is therefore not to bow to every demand the police make, but to determine which ones are legitimate, and which ones are not. Police desire for a measure, while useful, does not form a sufficient political case without further supporting arguments. One might look to those involved in the prosecution of terrorist suspects for such supporting arguments. Here however such arguments are noticeable by their absence. Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney-General, has said “the case has not been made for that extension and I can’t personally support it”. The Director of Public Prosecutions has expressed no desire for an extension of the period of detention without charge. He considers the existing legislation “sufficient”. Furthermore, members of the Crown Prosecution Service have admitted that, in the past three years, only three suspects have been held beyond fourteen days. Such high-profile independent criticism by expert practitioners undermines any case for extended internment.
The argument that the powers should be granted now because they may be needed in the future is asinine. It is tantamount to an admission by the government that they have no justification. Granting the government the powers anyway because they may be able to make a case in the future but are unable to do so now is to promote complacency and arrogance. The logical response is to make the case in the future when it exists. As Sir Ken MacDonald points out, there is a difference between possibility and probability. It is entirely possible that a giant purple dragon called Morris will destroy my house tomorrow. It is however highly improbable. Just because something may be needed in the future does not means it will be. When citizens’ fundamental freedoms are at stake, the decision should favour the rights of the citizen. It is the sort of pre-emptive condescending legislation that is an affront to liberty.
There is little tolerance for the person who arms himself with a knife because it is possible he may be attacked. We all know that such self-armament risks escalating violence. Likewise it is irresponsible to extend detention without charge without good reason at present. It is an unnecessary escalation that may well put British citizens at greater risk. When political capital can be made by extremists about any measure that may be conceived as illiberal, it is ludicrous to suggest that further illiberality without a clear, present and pressing need is a vital weapon against those same extremists and their followers.
The safeguards suggested are little of the sort. In practice they make no difference; the executive retains unaccountable power. The Home Secretary is not going to challenge the assumptions the security apparatus make, and Parliament will not be availed of the information to challenge the Home Secretary as do so would be prejudicial to a trial. Home Secretaries frequently place themselves as the opponents of liberty, and to suggest that their opinion is the safeguard of it is so ludicrous it would be funny if it were not so serious. In a genuine emergency situation, the period of detention without charge can already be extended under the Civil Contingencies Act. What this new legislation changes is the ease with which such extensions occur, and the requirement for judicial oversight. It is the executive seeking to appropriate more power over the lives of citizens without justification.
My prediction is that the Bill will pass in the Commons by a narrow margin. Labour is running scared of a Conservative resurgence and some backbenchers will rally to their party to prevent a further defeat. Others will uncritically accept the safeguards without challenging their fundamental assumption that the executive can self-regulate, or understanding that the measure is abhorrent in its entirety, not in part.
Things could get interesting however in the House of Lords. The Upper House has consistently demonstrated that it is on the side of liberty against the government. The advice of such prominent figures as Lord Goldsmith and the Law Lords could sway many undecided peers. Combined with a divided Labour bench, Conservative and Liberal Democrat benches opposing the measure and the support of crossbenchers, the House has a good chance of defeating the Bill. Sending it back to the House of Commons may well change the outcome insofar as wavering supporters of the Bill, faced with a resounding rejection by the experts in the Other Place, could change their minds. Assuming that they did not, by dragging out the legislative process, the Lords could delay the passage of the Bill to the point where a government more friendly to civil liberty takes power and defeats it.
Legislation tends to be scrutinised in more detail in the Lords. Through a longer legislative process, the House could include safeguards worthy of the name into the final Bill. Although this is not the best outcome, it is nonetheless far preferable to the legislation in its current form. By drawing out Parliament’s debate and therefore the controversy surrounding the measure, the government could also be forced to make further concessions.
The nuclear option of the Parliament Act could ultimately see the Bill’s defeat. Curtailing Habeas Corpus is illiberal enough, but overriding the objections of experts in the Lords to pass it would be even worse. The possibility could be enough to encourage further Labour MPs to rebel against such a drastic measure, enough to see its defeat, or to encourage ambitious young Cabinet ministers to use the issue to force Brown’s departure.
UPDATE: It appears that the Bill is to be debated on Wednesday. If that is the case it is unlikely that I will be able to cover it fully. I’ll keep you updated on Twitter.
Sphere: Related ContentViolent Crime, Anti-Social Behaviour and the Community
The fatal stabbing of Robert Knox last week was the latest in a series of murders that have shocked the public. The President of the High Court’s Queen’s Bench Division has described knife crime as being ‘at epidemic proportions’. Low-level crime has in many cases been grouped together under the umbrella category of “anti-social behaviour”, and a growth in gang and weapon culture in Britain has been observed. There is a feeling in the media and the public that such crime is an ever more pressing challenge that requires a bold solution.
One can accept in part the statistics that are quoted with regards to crime rates. Claims that Britain is facing a rise in violent crime but that overall crime rates are falling are not mutually exclusive. Upon examination of the British Crime Survey and Home Office statistics the greatest declines have been vehicle thefts and domestic burglary. Such crimes are usually ones of opportunity. Improvements in crime prevention technology have been partially responsible for these reductions. However, to use such statistics regarding an overall fall in crime are to overlook significant increases in violent and drug-related crimes, far more pertinent to the discussion at hand. The British Crime Survey also suffers from the problem of not surveying under-16s until recently. That many victims and perpetrators today fall into this category distorts the figures, making accurate use of previous results difficult. To say crime rates are falling in response to questions over violent crime is to miss the point.
Even if one is to assume that violent crime rates have remained stable, the fundamental issue remains unaddressed. The rate of such crimes, regardless of stability, remains unacceptable. The underlying attitudes that cause them pose a serious challenge for law-enforcement and society in general. Although it would be unrealistic to suggest , for example, that possession and use of weapons can be eliminated, the underlying attitude that considers it is socially acceptable and a legitimate form of self-defence can be limited. Violent and gang-related crime are a growing problem and solutions covering the various causes and effects have to be examined for the short, medium and long term.
The short-term solution is the more rigorous enforcement of existing laws. Legislation already exists to tackle the worst problems. Effective enforcement, along with a greater police presence in the worst-affected areas, with the employment of a more robust approach can reduce the relative ease and impunity with which such criminals can operate. Such restriction can also provide short-term relief, as well as the space necessary for medium to long-term solutions to be effective. This approach, though high-profile and likely to deliver short-term results, cannot however be an effective long-term strategy. It is too expensive and too repressive to be a panacaea. A long-term high police presence would cost the taxpayer more money, divert police resources from other vital tasks, and risk projecting a negative image of the force that may hamper its ability to build and maintain effective long-term community relations. Although it could be argued that the pendulum of policing has swung too far in the direction of political correctness and sensitivity, a return to the days of “sus” and indiscriminate overzealous stop-and-search would be just as bad. Furthermore, strong enforcement and high-visibility policing does not address the underlying causes. They have to be used in conjunction with medium and long-term approaches.
In the medium term stronger sentencing is vital. Geoff Hoon explained the reasoning effectively on Question Time with regards to knife crime: by carrying a knife in public, the likelihood of someone being injured or killed increases. One is therefore responsible for the potentially fatal consequences of such a decision. Tough sentencing is thus required to punish the perpetrator for putting other members of the public at risk. Strong sentencing has the political effect of demonstrating a resolve to take such crime seriously, bolstering enforcement and prevention efforts on other fronts. It also acts as an effective deterrent against carrying a weapon. The cost of possessing a knife can be made to outweigh the dubious benefits of defensive capability it is supposed to confer. People are then less likely to want to possess a knife for self-defence, and will opt to be unarmed instead. Potential murders are reduced to brawls. As the previous sentence highlights, this is a medium-term solution. It can reduce instances of possession of knife weapons, and put a dent in the attitudes that legitimise such possession, but it requires additional support to provide a full response. Without addressing the causes, such a solution risks simply reducing the violence of crime, rather than the level of crime.
The long-term response has to be the rebuilding and strengthening of communities. Many of the problems surrounding armed and gang crime come from issues of attitudes and social deprivation. People seek to overcome low self-esteem by arming themselves and gaining a sense of empowerment. A lack of identity leads to people seeking affirmation in gangs, and the lack of ability to productively channel one’s energies leads to mindless violence bordering on the feral. Youth clubs have shut down, community property has been handed over to developers, and institutions of civil society have weakened. The desire for such communities however remains strong. The proliferation of social networking sites and online communities demonstrates the need for social interaction based around common interests and identities. Almost simultaneously however the institutions of territorial community have withered in place of an increasingly atomised society that overemphasises individualism. A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation demonstrated the extent of popular sentiment on this issue, arguing that the decline in community and rise of individualism were considered the new social evils. The loss of community spirit and institutions has weakened the fabric of society that is vital in preventing and restricting crime and anti-social behaviour.
By rebuilding and strengthening the local community one can provide alternate sources of activity for those who might otherwise join gangs. By keeping people occupied, the basic ability to cause trouble is limited. The provision of opportunities to develop skills and socialise in non-hostile environments also serves to build character and self-esteem, reducing the need for the weapon as a status symbol, as well as the desire to find affirmation in a gang. Through the provision of social activity, people become tied to their communities and their neighbours. Anti-social behaviour will be reduced if people feel they are part of that society. By rebuilding local communities, the territorial instinct and desire for identity that many young men have can be fulfilled in a productive manner, and channelled towards integration into wider society. A strong community also builds the cultural will necessary for the enforcement of the law. It allows the police to become integrated and have the popular support they need to operate effectively, and develops the social attitudes that empower people to stand against gangs and criminality, knowing that they are not merely crusading individuals, but speak with the backing of the community they belong to.
The underlying cause of rising violent crime and anti-social behaviour is not through a fundamental lack of discipline, education or law, but from the decline in the traditional institutions and spirit of community in modern Britain. Effective policing and strong sentencing can only address the symptoms of crime; the causes must be addressed by the strengthening of the local institutions of community and society.
Sphere: Related Content
