Brown’s security strategy is the worst of all worlds

David Davis

5 July 2008

It’s draconian, expensive and ineffective, says David Davis. All the evidence shows that the Prime Minister is eroding our civil liberties pointlessly

As shadow home secretary for five years, it became an office joke that, faced with difficult policy questions, I would demand ‘get me the evidence!’ I am a scientist by training and, while 69 per cent of the public believe I took a principled stance in resigning from Parliament, that decision was also based on a rigorous empirical assessment of the evidence. The reality is that the relentless stream of repressive measures taken by this government over the last eleven years — whether 42 days pre-charge detention or any other — has not made us any safer. In many cases, they have jeopardised our security. In other cases, they are an irrelevant distraction — of time, resources and energy — from the real job at hand, namely protecting the public.

Terrified of the electorate, Gordon Brown decided that Labour would not contest the by-election occasioned by my resignation, even gagging ministers from debating the government’s record. Yet he could not resist responding to my resignation in a speech he gave on 17 June in the cosy confines of his favourite think-tank. That speech made two things crystal clear. First, he stands behind the sustained assault on British liberty, so expect more to come. Second, he has no idea about the effectiveness of his security policies.

Take 42 days. Mr Brown said it was difficult to claim that the change in the terrorist threat was not ‘serious enough to justify change in our laws’. Yet he offered no evidence to justify yet another extension — the limit quadrupled between 2003 and 2005 — which explains why the Director of Public Prosecutions concluded that the 42 days proposal was ‘unnecessary’ and ‘irrelevant’. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner conceded there was no evidence. Others who support 42 days, like Ken Jones (president of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers), quietly confessed they had not scrutinised the evidence. Nor had ministers. Jacqui Smith pointed to the alleged Heathrow 2006 plot to blow ten airliners out of the sky. Five cases had gone to 28 days, so surely Ken Jones was right to say police were ‘up against the buffers’? In fact, the evidence showed that all the main players in the conspiracy were charged within 21 days. Of the five held for 28 days, three were innocent (released without any further suspicion). The other two were charged with less serious offences based on evidence obtained after 4 and 12 days, not up against the wire. They were both subsequently bailed — hardly high risk cases. So, the DPP was right. They had coped ‘comfortably’ within the 28-day limit.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: David Davis | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (8)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

john problem

July 3rd, 2008 9:09am Report this comment

One never imagined that, if Hitler and company. had invaded this treasured isle, he would have found Britons ready and able to help his Gestapo in their daily round. Until now, It's frightening how, seemingly, any council worker will turn into an Obersturmbahnfuhrer overnight if so asked by our government.

Niall

July 3rd, 2008 11:50am Report this comment

All valid points Mr. Davis but they would have been better received from a Shadow Home Secretary rather than the Eddie the Eagle of backbenchers.

Ray

July 3rd, 2008 12:58pm Report this comment

DD perfectly sums up this Government's whole crime-fighting strategy: criminalise the law-abiding majority whilst leaving the criminal minority free to do their nefarious deeds in peace.

Kevyn Bodman

July 3rd, 2008 6:05pm Report this comment

All valid points Mr. Davis and they are better highlighted by your stand in this by-election than they would have been otherwise.

Dwight Vandryver

July 4th, 2008 2:03am Report this comment

One is reminded of the BBC's Question Time programme immediately after the 7/7 bombings when a woman in the audience shouted at the panel: "How will you protect my babies?!". How indeed, and the government in power was expected to react positively. Failure to do so would have certainly attracted negative media coverage. Knife crime is the present scourge and dangerous and drunk driving came before that. Then there are the daily health scares ranging from mobile phones and alcohol to nuclear waste and passive smoking, with a good dose of carbohydrates and saturated fats thrown in along the way. Life is a risk, but the public do not acknowledge the fact. Instead, they look to the Nanny State to save them from such dangers, although statistically the risks involved are infinitesimally small compared to jumping in the car or walking down stairs. People may dislike the idea of the surveillance society. They may disapprove of ID cards and detention without charge. But when the argument is put that if only one innocent life could be saved by these measures, most people would agree to them. In today's society, civil liberty is as outmoded as nuclear disarmament. Paranoia over personal safety is the "in" thing.

Alun Reynolds

July 4th, 2008 11:58am Report this comment

Well said Mr Davis. Naill I agree to a degree, but think that what David has achieved by doing what he has done is to make the question more stark. Sort of made it stand out from the parliamentary noise.

My worry though is that the leftist media (particlarly the BBC) are deliberately starving this debate of oxygen.

They don't want the Government undermined as they subscribe to the leftist totalitarian agenda.

But whatever happens David Davis has restored my belief that someone in the policital arena really cares about the people, not their job. For that I am grateful, whether or not anything changes.

Pauline

July 4th, 2008 2:25pm Report this comment

The continued erosion of civil liberties and the cancerous corrosion of democracy are surely safe in this governments hands. Immutably committed to preserving its core values of centralisation and ever tighter control, it ridicules any possibility of there being another way: With a complacent and compliant society why should they even give lip service to, say, the ridiculous notion of freedom with responsibility. As for that David Davis they knew just how to deal with him. If they had got away with ignoring their promise to grant a referendum on the constitution of the EU why on earth would they put up a candidate to oppose that whippersnapper? So not only centralising and controlling but consistent with it! Do you know I think we've got the government we deserve.