ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

David Davis' champagne moment

The former Shadow Home Secretary obviously didn't get the memo.  David Davis enjoyed a few glasses of champagne in a Commons bar last night with the Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti and his successor Dominic Grieve.  And who can blame him?  Labour suffered a massive defeat in the Lords yesterday on the issue that he has made his own; '42 days'.  There were 309 votes against the Government.  118 in favour.

After the vote Shadow Security Minister, Pauline Neville-Jones, said:

"The vote was decisive. The proposal to extend pre-charge detention failed on three significant grounds: necessity, desirability and practicability. On all sides of the House of Lords the majority view - drawing on significant experience in policing, security and the law - was that these provisions should be completely removed. The Government produced no evidence to support an extension to 42 days.  The extension would have been disproportionate and, in any event, so unworkable that the police and prosecutors would not have used it."

So heavy was the defeat that the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has now decided to remove the 42 days proposal from the Counter Terrorism Bill.

WATCH: Lords defeat Government on '42 days'

2pm: Parliament blog on Lord Tebbit's support for 42 days

Should 42 days be a litmus test for the new Met Chief?

We know that most readers oppose 42 days (unlike this blog) but what do people think about it being an issue that stops an otherwise effective police officer from running the Met?  The Sunday Telegraph suggests confusingly that Boris Johnson both "may" and "will" object to a Met Chief that supported the Government on 42 days.  Such a litmus test (if it exists) may discourage police officers from making any statements on controversial issues in future - like drugs, speed cameras or stop and search.  Is that a good thing?

Alan Duncan attacks the "vulgar and pointless" protest of Parliament Square

The protest in Parliament Square against the Iraq war has gone on for a number of years.  The protest's ringleader Brian Haw has become a hero of the left.  But is it time we said that he and his anti-war fellow protestors should move on?  Alan Duncan thinks so.  This morning's Guardian reports:

"Protesters camped outside Westminster have "no justifiable democratic purpose" and should be moved on permanently, a Tory frontbencher said today. The shadow business secretary, Alan Duncan, said the camp - where anti-war campaigner Brian Haw has lived since 2001 - had become a "vulgar and pointless display"."

The Daily Mail's Ben Brogan salutes Mr Duncan for offering testimony that secured a harrassment conviction for Barbara Tucker:

"Mrs Tucker is one of the loonies gathered around Brian Haw who have turned a section of Parliament Square into a passionate statement for liberty and individual rights an eyesore. Her daily rallying cry of "Genocide is a war crime, Tony Blair is a war criminal" is wearisomely familiar to those along the Burma Road, and many of us have filed complaints to the police about her. Final word to Mr Duncan: "The whole encampment has become a vulgar and pointless display which is utterly demeaning for the Westminster Parliament. It is nothing to do with freedom of speech or the right to protest. It no longer has any justifiable democratic purpose. It is time to stop it." Dunky has always been a bit of a have-a-go chap; I remember watching him try to arrest the protestors who covered Brian Mawhinney's suit in paint years ago. Full marks to him for standing up to this nonsense."

Dominic Grieve to make it easier for police to conduct surveillance

The Guardian reports that Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve is to propose amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act so that it is simpler for the police to conduct surveillance on those suspected of non-terrorist offences.  The article quotes Tory concerns that one police officer recently spent thirteen-and-a-half hours filling out paperwork in order to follow a burglar with three previous convictions.

According to The Guardian Mr Grieve wants the police to have automatic rights to:

• "Use covert video or listening devices in premises or vehicles.
• Watch premises to identify or arrest suspects.
• Conduct visual surveillance of public locations.
• Patrol, in uniform or plain clothes.
• Use thermal imaging and X-ray technology.
• Conduct surveillance using visible CCTV cameras."

Earlier in the summer the outgoing chair of the Local Government Association, Sir Simon Milton, highlighted local authorities' use and misuse of surveillance powers.

Mr Grieve's is the second announcement of a week that is dedicated to crime in the Tories' summer media grid. Yesterday's announcement was from Nick Herbert on stricter bail conditions.

Information fundamentalism?

It's reported today that more than half a million requests for personal communications data such as records of private telephone calls and e-mails, were lodged by councils and law enforcement agencies last year.

Most people would agree that some of these requests were over-zealous, but where do you draw the line of acceptability? David Walker, Editor of the Guardian's Public magazine, has written a piece today exploring some of the benefits of information sharing. He notes a tension between different attitudes amongst Conservatives:

"Westminster council has uniformed "city guardians" patrolling alongside the police, with ubiquitous CCTV and Wi-Fi cameras as back up, and its 24-hour noise team guarantees a response to complaints within 45 minutes. The borough also operates dispersal zones to tackle aggressive begging and youth disorder. Sir Simon Milton, the former Tory leader of the borough, adds: "We have some of the toughest licensing policies in the country, and an effective enforcement regime that targets problem premises." So far, he says, so traditionally Conservative.

But what to some Tories is pragmatic municipal action is seen by others as state intrusion and a chance to bash the Labour government. Milton himself, as chair of the Local Government Association, remonstrated with councils that use their surveillance powers to snoop on litter louts. Fly tippers, rogue traders and fraudsters were a different matter - set the cameras on them, he said.

That's proportionality, Milton argued, but where to draw the line is infinitely contestable."

Walker goes on to criticise "information fundamentalists" who are too purist about privacy.

Regarding CCTV it's worth noting that according to his biography David Cameron backed a plan to hasten the spread of the cameras when he was Michael Howard's Home Office SpAd. Danny Finkelstein has today paid handsome tribute to the long-term effects of Howard's successful reforms to crime-fighting, reforms which Cameron probably doesn't get enough credit for.

Davis to have some sort of civil liberties role

He won't be returning to the Shadow Cabinet anytime soon but David Davis will have a civil liberties oversight role in the party.

He's returning to the Commons next week and will meet David Cameron to discuss what it might entail. Cameron had said earlier that:

"I will talk to him about what the future holds, but I have a very strong shadow cabinet. David is a very strong Conservative and very big figure in our party and there are all sorts of ways of him contributing in the future."

The role may be seen as a way of placating a potentially prickly backbencher, although Davis is apparently keen not to be pigeon-holed as a civil liberties campaigner.

8.30pm: Iain Dale says DD shouldn't and won't accept this role.  Iain's post has probably been written with DD's green light.

David Davis: I return to the Commons with a mandate to fight Gordon Brown's vision of Big Brother Britain

David Davis won his by-election with a majority of 15,355 and on a turnout of 34%. These two quotes from his speech at the by-election count were recorded by The Telegraph:

David Davis claims he has transformed public opinion during the period of his campaign: "Today the people of Haltemprice and Howden have delivered a stunning - a stunning - message to the Government, and our campaign has reverberated across the country. Four weeks ago as Gordon Brown stooped into the gutter to rig the vote on 42 days, ministers crowed that 69% of people voted 42 days. Today just 36 per cent supported it.  Four weeks ago the Government touted public support for a range of other draconian measures.  Today 71 per cent support my stand against the attacks on British liberty."

On his return to the Commons: "I do so with a clear mandate, to fight Gordon Brown's vision of Big Brother Britain tooth and nail, to stop 42 days in its tracks, to prevent the disaster of ID cards before it happens, to protect our personal privacy from being ransacked by the ever-intrusive state.  But most of all for the thousands upon thousands that have written to me, supported me, and voted for me, I return to fight for those fundamental freedoms that define our way of life - freedoms that millions died defending, freedoms that make Britain great."

BBC video of a post-count interview with David Davis in which he claims the turnout was "spectacular".

9am: David Cameron congratulates Mr Davis on his "brave" stand and says that public support for 42 days is "draining away".

9.30am: PoliticsHome has transcribed highlights of DD's Today programme interview.

11.15am: "Conservative heavyweight David Davis is 10/1 for a return to the shadow cabinet before the end of the year, following his Haltemprice and Howden by-election victory," says Ladbrokes.

Noon: Video of DD's victory speech

Was it worth it?

Some bloggers made a lot of an ICM survey yesterday that showed much greater public sympathy for David Davis' position on 42 days than we had seen in previous polls.  But as Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report has noted, the ICM poll asked a very different style of question to earlier YouGov polls and the ICM poll could be criticised for leading the respondents.  A much better way of judging whether public opinion has shifted during the course of Mr Davis' by-election campaign is to compare like-for-like polls.  PoliticsHome.com has done that with its PHI5000 poll and found no shift in public opinion:

"PoliticsHome has twice asked the PHI 5000: "do you support or oppose extending the period that terrorist suspects can be held without charge from 28 days to 42?" On the 20th June, 65% supported the extension and 31% opposed. On the 7th July, 66% supported 42 days and 30% opposed it."

The voters of Haltemprice & Howden go to the polls today - at least Mr Davis hopes they will.  There are fears, according to The Telegraph, that turnout may be "humiliatingly" low.  Tory MPs who have been to the seat - and many have - return with stories of a divided Conservative Association - unhappy at the estimated £200,000 cost of the by-election campaign and disappointed that their MP is no longer set to be Home Secretary.

As we reported last week, most Conservative Party members across the country also regret David Davis' decision to quit the frontbench although most also believe he will influence public opinion on civil liberties.  That is David Davis' best long-term bet.  Like IDS' commitment to turn the Conservative Party into a party of social justice - what we call 'realignment' - Mr Davis will only succeed by keeping at this task for many years.  One of the real things that the ICM poll did show is that the public are more open to the civil libertarian argument when it is framed in certain ways.  The concern for the civil libertarians is that the public mood is likely to change markedly against them if, God forbid, there are a number of terrorist incidents.

Tory members say David Davis was wrong to resign (but David Cameron should have him back)

David Cameron is campaigning for David Davis this afternoon; George Osborne visits next week; Iain Duncan Smith, Jeremy Hunt and Chris Grayling were in Haltemprice and Howden yesterday.  Every Tory MP has been instructed to visit at least once.

The overwhelming view of Tory MPs who ConservativeHome have spoken to, however, is that David Davis was wrong to resign his seat and should have fought for his views within the shadow cabinet.  Tory members agree with that view although in almost identical numbers they want Mr Davis brought back into the shadow cabinet - an unlikely outcome, at least in the short-term.  By two-to-one Tory members also believe that David Davis' campaign will highlight  "the ways in which our civil liberties are in danger".

Last week Mr Davis launched his campaign with Ten Promises to Protect British Freedoms.

Related link: On the afternoon of David Davis' resignation we found 66% of Tory members "inspired" by his resignation.

The Biggest Beasts of the Conservative jungle

There's an extended profile of Iain Duncan Smith and his social justice agenda in today's Observer magazine: The second coming of Iain Duncan Smith.

The lion's share of the progress that the party has made in this area under David Cameron's leadership - recently acknowledged by the Church of England - is owed to Iain Duncan Smith.  He has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for his Centre for Social Justice and many of the party's policy ideas owe much to his work.  There's much more to come.  A whole range of policy groups are about to report on homelessness, prisons, welfare benefits and housing.  Perhaps most important of all is the little known CSJ Alliance.  The Alliance is a support network for Britain's most effective poverty-fighting organisations.  Within the Alliance there are groups successfully tackling almost every single social ill.  In the years to come the Alliance has the potential to offer a different model to the welfare state and to the establishment voluntary sector.

But Iain Duncan Smith is far from the only big beast in the Conservative jungle.  The talent outside of the Tory frontbench is very considerable.

David Davis is the first name to spring to mind.

David Davis' campaign on historic liberties has captured the national attention even if it has bypassed the Westminster village.  He wins the endorsement of Tony Benn in today's Sunday Telegraph.  He published his manifesto on Friday.  Incidentally, while ConservativeHome disagrees with him on 42 days we support eight-and-a-half of his other ten campaign planks.  Both ConHome editors have recently slept outside of Parliament as part of a Burma protest so we support the right of free speech outside of Parliament but wonder what he means by wanting all restrictions on free speech removed.  Would constant loud speaker protests, including loud music, be permitted?

We may start getting into hotter water with some of our other nominations but three other big beasts stand out:

Sir Malcolm Rifkind.  It is an enormous shame that Sir Malcolm chose to leave the frontbench when David Cameron was elected leader.  His views on foreign policy and the constitution make him a favoured media pundit.  Only today he has penned a very good op-ed in The Sunday Telegraph calling for South Africa to bring Zimbabwe down within one month by turning off Harare's power supply.  Dan Lewis recommended the same on CentreRight just over a week ago.

Ken Clarke.  He is heavily tipped to return to the Tory frontbench if we win the General Election.  A poll of members found that most wouldn't mind or would welcome his return.

John Redwood.  The figure most party members see as the leading champion of 'the Right' outside of the frontbench has blogged a strong endorsement of David Cameron today: "No sensible Conservative need doubt the Leader’s Conservative credentials. This is the man who led his party in its calls for a referendum on Lisbon and to oppose the whole Treaty. This is the man who led his party to advance cuts in Inheritance Tax for the many, as well as the man who has presided over most important work on how to mend Britain’s damaged society. Under Cameron Conservatives know what we believe in – we believe in opportunity for all, with reform of public sector housing and schooling to make that more of a reality for those currently excluded from home ownership and good education by Labour’s clumsy state."

We return to IDS and David Davis as the two most interesting of the big beasts.  They have led the party to take their respective causes very seriously.  Both began to champion their causes while holding high office within the party but have persevered since.  One big gap for a big beast cause still stands out to us: international development and international human rights.  These related issues are still not yet quite top tier within the party.  Who could be the big beast to champion them?

Our case for 42 days

We know this isn't going to be popular among a great many ConservativeHome readers and 92% of adopted Tory candidates but we ought to publicly nail our colours to the mast and stand up with Ann Widdecombe, Norman Tebbit, Matthew d'Ancona, Melanie Phillips and Frank Field as supporters of the Government's attempts to introduce a period of 42 days' pre-charge detention.

This debate is often portrayed as a great clash between those who care about civil liberties and those who don't.  Between those who are too worried about the threat of terrorism and those who are blind to the dangers we face from extremists.  This isn't helpful.  Is there really a substantial, principled difference between the Conservative leadership's support for the existing 28 day detention period and the Labour leadership's preference for 42 days?  David Cameron has always been careful to appear pragmatic on the issue - repeatedly saying that he and the Tory frontbench were open to persuasion that more than 28 days might be necessary.  He hasn't been persuaded but he has never ruled out a longer period of detention on the grounds of high principle.

Experts are divided on the issue but we have heard enough in recent days to tip us into the camp supporting the Government's plans.

Crucial to our conclusion was last week's article in The Telegraph by Peter Clarke, former head of Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Unit.  He argued that the complexity of the terrorist networks we currently face - using hi tech methods and operating across borders - may mean that more than 28 days of investigations might soon be necessary.  Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Met Chief, who advises David Cameron on security issues, has told this morning's Times that "anti-terrorist police have come close in the cases of six suspects to needing more than 28 days to detain them".  A mature political party, interested in public safety, shouldn't lightly dismiss the arguments of such a senior anti-terrorist specialist and a senior police chief.

John Major: "The threat to liberty is graver than terrorism"

Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has written for this morning's Times about the many ways in which he sees Labour assaulting Britain's fundamental liberties:

Complicity in rendition: "We now know that, despite repeated denials, our Government was complicit in rendition, or - to put it in plain terms - the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.  Although the intention was presumably to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus."

42 days: "The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular - and no less violent - assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering.  After terrorist attacks on London, Parliament doubled the time that suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. Probably, that was justified. But soon Parliament will be asked to increase detention without charge to 42 days... There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge."

ID cards: "They were to be voluntary. Now it is clear that they will be compulsory. Yet the Government has admitted that such cards would not have stopped the London bombers. Nor will they cut illegal immigration, since asylum-seekers have been obliged to carry ID cards for nearly eight years. Nor will they have any real impact on benefits fraud, as this is typically caused by misrepresentation of financial resources rather than by identity."

Recording DNA: "Under present legislation, DNA can be retained permanently for even minor misdemeanours, such as being drunk. A total of more than four million samples are already on the UK database - far more than in any other country. This includes tens of thousands of children, and a disproportionate number of black men. If this is accepted, it will one day go farther. This cannot be right: for me, it is all uncomfortably authoritarian."

A thought for Guy Fawkes Day

This from John Redwood's blog:

"On November 5th we remember that terrorism in the name of religion is not a new problem.  We should also remember how this plot was foiled. It was not intercepted through the issue of ID cards. The police or army did not spot the plotters carrying huge barrels of gunpowder into a cellar. It was not prevented by a cordon of oak or iron - today’s concrete and steel - around the Palace of Westminster.  The murderers were prevented from killing the Parliament and government of James I by intelligence picking up a family tip off."

Davis and Chakrabarti slam "internment" suggestion

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has joined Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti in condemning a police chief's call for  "as long as it takes" detention of terror suspects.  The head of the Association of Police Chief Officers Ken Jones told The Observer the head of the Association of Police Chief Officers:

"We are now arguing for judicially supervised detention for as long as it takes. We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit. We understand people will be concerned and nervous, but we need to create a system with sufficient judicial checks and balances which holds people, but no longer than a day [more than] necessary.  We need to go there [unlimited detention] and I think that politicians of all parties and the public have great faith in the judiciary to make sure that's used in the most proportionate way possible."

Ms Chakrabarti said that Jones was campaigning for internment.  Mr Davis was also vigorous in his opposition to the ACPO intervention:

“All the evidence shows that when the police tried to claim the need for 90 day detention without charge they were wrong and parliament’s decision on 28 days was right.  If 90 days was wrong, indefinite detention is even more wrong.  The argument that this should be under judicial supervision is facile in the extreme. The current 28 day limit is already under judicial supervision.  What is more, since the 28 day limit was introduced neither the police or security services have produced one shred of evidence to demonstrate the need for extension, either in public or in confidential briefings.”

Matthew d'Ancona is unwilling to attack Ken Jones' intervention.  Over at The Spectator blog he writes:

"It is clear beyond doubt that many modern terrorist cases involve forensic problems of unprecedented complexity - codes, languages, international connections - and that the police will increasingly require longer than they used to in order to sift through the evidence. It will not always be possible to charge a detainee. So why not make it possible for the police to continue detention indefinitely, but only if they can persuade a judge that it is necessary to ensure public safety?"

Gordon Brown will have the backing of the bulk of his parliamentary party if he chooses to legislate for a longer period of detention without trial.  Most Tory MPs do not see the need for any change.

David Davis highlights Labour's ineffective authoritarianism

On the day that it is revealed that John Reid and Tony Blair plan to introduce new stop-and-question powers for the police the Shadow Home Secretary (writing for The Independent on Sunday) documents the extent to which Labour has taken liberties without improving security:

1. Groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Tamil Tigers are unbanned, he writes, but there is a ban on demonstrations within a kilometre of Parliament;
2. The DNA database records information on 100,000 innocent children but fails to record many serious criminals;
3. "Experts say that ID cards will cluster our personal information in one place, making it a prime target for criminals and terrorists";
4. The anti-terrorist forces have been under-resourced and in their place we get unwarranted proposals such as ninety days without trial that would drive "disaffected young Muslims into the arms of extremists".

The film Taking Liberties - referred to by Mr Davis - is released nationwide on 8th June.

David Cameron was asked earlier this week why he still had not appointed a replacement for sacked homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer.  He replied that he was waiting to see how the Government's own new arrangements for home and security affairs bed down.  There is some speculation that Mr Mercer might return to his old position in the summer reshuffle.  Another name in the frame is Baron Trimble because of his Northern Ireland experiences.

Related link: The civil libertarian Tories

The civil libertarian Tories

In another sign of the extent to which the Conservative Party has become the party of civil libertarianism a Communicate Research poll for The Independent finds that Labour MPs are much more likely to support police calls for an increase in the maximum time that suspected terrorists can be detained.

It is one of the last remaining issues - including ID cards - on which Labour appears closer to the public mood.

David Cameron has called Labour's 'security measures' "ineffective authoritarianism".  He has promised a border police force with the money that will be saved by scrapping ID cards.

In a recent article for The Sunday Telegraph, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis emphasised greater investment in intelligence, the use of intercept evidence and improved "resilience" to inevitable terrorist attacks.

Related link: The Tories' Molotov-Ribbentrop pact against anti-terror measures (3 November 2005)