Here are David Davis’ answers to the first 5 questions put forward by CoffeeHousers:
1) Simon Chapman:
“The Conservative Party had won the argument and the moral victory. There are still battles to be fought in Parliament. As Shadow Home Secretary, in the current polls, you had the opportunity in two years time to reverse not only 42 days but the whole erosion of liberty that you have championed. Why, then, did you decide that your resignation was a more effective strategy for your cause and to achieve your objective of civil liberty reform, than the alternative option open to you: staying in your job, leading the parliamentary battle, and then rolling back the legislation as a great reforming Home Secretary?”
We can still achieve that under the stewardship of my excellent successor, Dominic Grieve, but the truth is that the issue runs deeper than incremental reform.
On 11 June, the government passed 42 days detention without charge in the House of Commons. It marked a watershed, the culmination of eleven years of relentless attrition against our fundamental freedoms. A Conservative government will certainly restore some common sense – we can scrap ID cards and, having re-assessed the evidence, reverse 42 days. But I want to raise the level of national debate, beyond the confines of the Westminster village. I want to take the case to the country, that we are day-by-day pawning off the crown jewels of our democracy, and that the Faustian trade-off between security and liberty offered by this government is a fraud.
I do not believe that such a national debate can wait another two years, and it would be difficult to achieve either in a wider general election or within the confines of the daily news cycle by which the media judge the government of the day. A single issue by-election may be unconventional, but it allows my campaign to reach out to the wider public – 69% of whom approve of the principled stance I have taken.
2) Kevyn Bodman:
“Those of us opposed to 42 day detention without charge are sometimes accused of defending the right of terrorists to blow us up and of not being willing to keep ordinary people safe … That’s a point that needs to countered … How do you counter it?”
First, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the police and prosecutors have – in the words of the Director of Prosecutions – coped ‘comfortably’ within the 28 day limit. In fact, the police have not needed more than 14 days in almost a year – let alone 28 or even 42 days. So the police have not been ‘up against the buffers’, as suggested by the President of ACPO. That is factually incorrect.
Second, after the Heathrow plot to blow ten airliners out of the sky in August 2006, all the main terrorist players were charged with conspiracy to murder inside 21 days. The police – quite rightly – made dangerous suspects their number one priority. Five suspects were held for the maximum period. Three of those held for the maximum 28-da period were released, innocent of any charge. The evidence on the two charged at the end of that period was available within 4 and 12 days respectively. They were charged with the lesser offences and both men were bailed – which a court would never sanction if they were dangerous. So, the insinuation by Ministers that 42 days is necessary to protect the public from terrorists who, if released, might immediately escape to detonate a bomb, is at odds with the facts. None of this is a criticism of the police or prosecutors, who understandably work to the limit set by Parliament. But it does show how extensions of pre-charge detention are likely to hit those peripheral to a plot – and the wholly innocent – the hardest.
Third, there are a range of serious practical measures the government has failed to take, which would protect the public – post-charge questioning, use of the enhanced sentence for withholding of computer passwords and the use of intercept evidence in court. That is before we even talk about the government’s lax approach to those that preach vitriol and violence in – and against – this country, which has a stark radicalising effect. The serious charge to be laid against the government is that its fixation on its two big political gestures – 42 days and ID cards – has distracted them from a range of necessary security measures we so sorely need.
Fourth, far from protecting the public, 42 days would jeopardise our security – generating a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. Lord Dear, former Chief Inspector of the Police, has described 42 days as a ‘PR coup for al-Qaida’. And even the government’s own impact assessment reckons it will cut off vital local community intelligence.
3) Jessica:
“Is this some kind of smokescreen? Is your real motive to undermine David Cameron and then in time mount a leadership bid?”
I have ruled out ever running for the leadership again.
4) David T:
“If I were a Tory who thought you were an excellent constituency MP, but who nevertheless supported the 42 day proposal, who should I vote for in the coming election? In particular, how can I make it clear that my vote does not express opposition to 42 days?”
Vote with your conscience.
5) TGF UKIP:
“Mr Davis, much of the pressure on our freedoms is coming not just from Government legislation but from the constant bullying, disguised as peer pressure, by the disciples of political correctness and the climate change lobby. Will you be speaking out against the curtailment of our freedoms by such bullying?”
I am not sure quite what you have in mind. But I certainly am in favour of vigorous debate of all the big subjects of the day. That is why I voted against the government’s thought crimes legislation.
Comments