In the absence of Tony Blair, sanity has returned to the national debate on
security and civil liberties. His messianic certainties, along with his wish
to score political points from terror, made it impossible to build consensus
or even identify areas of honest disagreement.
Last year he asserted that the police needed the power to hold suspects for up
to 90 days without charge. He offered nothing by way of evidence (except
that some policemen wanted it) and he used the issue to paint the
Conservatives as soft on terror.
Since Blair had previously claimed that Britain needed to go to war with Iraq
to rid it of weapons of mass destruction, the House of Commons was
disinclined to believe him and the government was defeated. John Reid,
Blair’s home secretary, later admitted that there was not a clear case for
advancing beyond 28 days.
Gordon Brown has learnt from Blair’s errors. With a quiet gravitas that
inspires more confidence than Blair’s evangelical rhetoric, the new prime
minister proposes consultation and, if possible, cross-party consensus on a
higher number of days, possibly 56.
The evidence may not be clear cut but Brown argues that in recent cases
suspects have had to be held for 27 or 28 days before the case could be
assembled. He supplied parliament with impressive figures of how many
premises needed to be searched and how many computers, CDs and DVDs scanned
and analysed.
David Cameron was sceptical but not dismissive. The case for an extension is
growing and Brown is offering important safeguards, including a report to
parliament each time the 28 days is exceeded and (surprisingly) the
opportunity for a parliamentary debate on every occasion.
The alternatives offered by the Tories (and the pressure group Liberty) look
unattractive. They argue that without changing the law the government could
declare an emergency that would give it powers to hold people for 58 days.
But that would be an abuse of emergency powers; a new authority with
safeguards is preferable. Or, they argue, suspects could be charged with
lesser offences within the 28 days. That can be left to the police to
decide. They will be reluctant to saddle ministers with a parliamentary
debate unless they feel that there is no option.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, is an impressive defender of civil
liberties. He demonstrates that, properly understood, Toryism is about
restraining the state, not caving in to authoritarian populism. Still, the
Conservatives seem likely to respond to the prime minister’s courteous
approach. We can expect to see the limit rise above 28 days (but probably
not to 56) with bipartisan support. Only the Labour left, and maybe the
Liberal Democrats, will maintain their opposition.
The Tory shift could be seen as weakness - a move to the right in response to
the party’s lamentable deficit in opinion polls. That would be unfair. New
experience on this issue has emerged and the Commons home affairs select
committee recognises that new legislation may be needed. Also, the
Conservatives have genuinely led the debate in certain areas. Recruiting
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee,
to the shadow cabinet gives the party a new authority. (She has proposed a
dedicated military home defence force, which also seems sensible.)
The Tories have long called for a unified borders police but were derided by
the Blair administration. It is a credit to the Tories and to Brown that the
government is now to adopt that proposal.
Certainly the scruffy band of officials who check our passports do not give
the impression of a country serious about defending its frontiers. Still,
perhaps the prime minister was too eager to emphasise the presentational
point, speaking of a “highly visible, uniformed presence”. What matters is
not just what they wear but what they do and what equipment they have to
help them. The Conservatives are probably right to suspect that Whitehall
plans an amalgamation rather than a reform.
It was shocking to learn that Britain is not linked to the Interpol database
of forged passports. With all the huff and puff about identity cards, that
basic precaution has been overlooked. Brown will close the gap at the cost
of a mere £5m. Checks on those leaving the country were abolished in 1998
and have not been reinstated systematically. The government now promises
border checks using biometric data, but while since 9/11 Britain has
procrastinated, the United States has been electronically screening the
finger-prints of all entrants to the country.
At least Brown seems willing to address Britain’s security needs in a
comprehensive way, concerned with substance as well as presentation. That is
reassuring. But there are worrying gaps. British universities are heavily
infiltrated by Islamists determined to radicalise students and set them on
the path to terrorism. The response from the universities, and especially
from the University and College Union (representing teaching staff) and from
the student unions seems woefully inadequate. Hizb ut-Tahrir is tolerated on
the campuses in a way that the British National party would not be.
If the universities are slow to react, there are signs that Britain is more
broadly getting the measure of the terrorist problem. We are shrugging off
the political correctness that once hampered an effective response. We are
getting over the idea that we are to blame for the terror threat. We are
not. It does not arise from social disadvantage, globalisation, capitalism
or foreign policy. Islamism is an international revolutionary movement
largely run by educated and advantaged people, which capitalises on any
grievance, contrived or imagined.
The nature of the threat has been well exposed by Ed Husain, a defector from
Hizb ut-Tahrir who has written a book about his experiences. Brown still
fails to give Cameron a convincing explanation for the government’s failure
to ban the organisation, as Blair had promised to do two years ago.
Last week, in a landmark decision,a jury convicted five young men, based
around an Islamist group at Bradford University, who had downloaded
extremist material including a manual on terror. The prosecution convinced
the court that even though they had not committed a terrorist act, they
should be imprisoned. The case is remarkable, too, because their activities
came to light when Mohammed Irfan Raja was denounced to the police by his
parents. Perhaps they reasoned that otherwise he would go to his death
taking many others with him.
It makes the point that arresting and convicting extremists is not an
antiMuslim act. Brown has made British-ness a theme and Muslims living here
should be addressed as British, just as Catholics, Jews and atheists are.
There is no point in pandering to groups claiming to represent British
Muslims if they cannot even issue unambiguous denunciations of suicide
bombings.
Strikingly, Husain has renounced Islamism but not Islam. He now believes that
his religion requires him to abandon his hatred of infidels and other
Muslims and to live in harmony with others.
The terror threat in Britain is probably growing but there are reasons to be
cheerful. Brown seems more level-headed and trustworthy than Blair, there is
a good chance of cross-party agreement on many issues and we are all
thinking more clearly about the enemy. Also, the government has doubled
spending on the security services.
However, willing as I am to reappraise a changing scene, I cannot see the case
for identity cards, nor was Brown convincing on this point in his Commons
statement. America is not planning to introduce them and no terrorist
incident would have been prevented had we had them. Adding biometric data to
passports and making them harder to forge would be good ideas. But the
billions of pounds to be blown on identity cards could be better spent on
other ways of protecting us.
Brown is clearly willing to give up Blair’s ideas and accept those of his
political opponents. Dropping identity cards would not be a sign of weakness
but rather of his increasing strength.
michael.portillo@sunday-times.co.uk
Then our happy band of muppets called a Labour government goes and loses 25 million unencrypted Benefit records and yes since every other type of records besides! along with it the total credibility to look after anyone's ID info!.... Just stop and think, if this is how your government treats personal info security already, then maybe we should hire Captain Manwarring and gang to look after any new shiny ID info database because at least you'd know from the off it couldn't get any more choatic and dysfunctional!! ...so New Labour say sID cards are the golden shield for our future security needs!, ... hopeless prats!
Chris Ryder, Banbury, Britain
I would sugest Micheal reads the only authoritative written account on Hizb al-Tahrir by Durham University's Suah Faruki rather than the shallow, biased and vindictive work of someone who pretends he was a member of the group, ed husain...
Then those listening to him may actually give his views some credibility...
JK, Nottingham,
I'm not convinced that banning extremist groups is the most effective way to reduce terrorist threats as the proponents will just re-surface under another name. The best approach is to come down hard on anyone breaking the laws on racial hatred and not pussy foot around ethnic minorities feelings. After all the CPS is hardly slow in craking down on the BNP even though it misunderstands the laws on racist activities and then fails in court. Perhaps if they were just as active against Muslim extremists inciting death to infidels most would have been locked up by now or deported. As for ID cards, they serve no purpose other than to give Labour control freaks the impression that they are controlling the electorate. For a low cost implementation of ID it would be cheaper and more effective to use the existing NI cards that are handed out in schools and put a mug shot on them. Older members of society could be upgraded over time with a similar card and the cost would be minimal.
Mike, Alicante, Spain
I am beginning to wonder what is behind Michael Portillo's fixation on banning Islamic political parties as this is the second occassion upon which he has specifically raised the matter of the proscription of Hizb ut Tahrir Britain! He ought to advise David Cameron that it appears somewhat hypocritical to call for the banning of a political group that you have engaged in debate with yourself? It is also strange that the former Home Secretary's categorical response to Cameron's question did not satisfy Cameron or Michael Portillo when John Reid re-iterated that there was no evidence upon which a ban could be justified! So what is your issue with Hizb ut Tahrir Britain Michael?
Salman, London, UK
THE BIOMETRICS CHOSEN BY IPS ARE NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH
ID cards, ePassports and biometric visas all form part of the National Identity Scheme (NIS) and are the responsibility of the Identity and Passport Service (IPS), an executive agency of the Home Office headed by Mr James Hall, previously UK Managing Partner of Accenture.
The NIS depends on reliable biometrics. Reliable biometrics would identify people with near-certainty and would make multiple registrations in the NIS impossible.
IPS's own trials of the biometrics chosen reveal them to be too unreliable for the NIS to be able to achieve its objectives. This point was made by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in their July 2006 report and in the National Audit Office's February 2007 report on ePassports.
The details are available with references at http://tinyurl.com/2ku8xu where a response from IPS is still awaited and at http://DematerialisedID.com/Biometrics.html.
David Moss, London, UK
I do enjoy reading the retarded thinking by the pro ID card lobby. If I was a terrorist, what would stop me recruiting more potential terrorists - with their own ID cards?
An ID card cannot and will NEVER carry your thoughts. Its basic administration will be a nightmare. Changing home? Don't forget to tell the men from the ministry or you get a £2000 fine. Don't want to tell anyone about your home - give someone elses, nobody will check. Not yet sixteen? Children can't be terrorists, can they? So they don't need ID cards! Not got a home? Ha! Sort that one out Gordon.
Robert Reynolds, Halifax, UK
ID cards only assist in establishing a person's identity, no more, no less. Yes they could be faked BUT if the information they contain is checked against a secure independent database fake cards are useless.
We already have ID cards e.g. try withdrawing cash from a cashpoint without the ID Card & PIN provided by your bank.
ID Cards can be used for: - Driving Licences; Passports; Benefit Claim Verificaton; Auto-completion of forms; Voter Registration; Financial Checks; Serious Offender Classification (e.g. peadophiles); Child Care Worker checks; Medic-Alert; On-line Authentication (with other security); ID for Police, Care Workers, Utility workers etc.; E-Purse payments; Biometric ID of bodies (corpses); Restricted Access to buildings; Starting of your car i.e. no card & PIN = no car theft; Pre-requisite for legal immigrants i.e. no card = no work permit, no benefit, no NHS etc.; Restricted Purchases i.e. knives, alcohol, cigarettes etc.
Sorry, I've run out of space!
Pete 'L', Salisbury, Wil;tshire
I believe ID cards are a requirement from the EU or most certainly a continental European passion and unless this is highlighted, we will continue down the slippery slope towards ID cards having to be presented before gaining entry into public places, this will include libraries, cinemas and theatres and even into football stadiums.
The problem with this social engineered EU-lunacy is not the present government or one that immediately follows, but what protection can we have for our liberties in say an EU government, twenty-five years into the future, perhaps at that stage the EU will be able to drill down and see that my negative comment today is then a treasonable act.
I fear Brown is just leading the way to the creation of a EU state and nothing changes, his rhetoric since becoming the front face for the government leaves a lot to be desired.
Peter Burd, Chelmsford, Essex
I keep saying it but it may be worth repeating. We have the advantage over most countries in the World of being an island.However it is an island awash with imported drugs. It is the sole responsibility of Customs and Excise to stop this but due to their incompetence and corruption we are now in the current situation. Why will it be different controlling the import of people?
PS Interpol makes Dads Army look cutting edge.
robert wade, lancs, uk
To argue that Hizb ut-Tahrir be banned based on what Ed husain said is like arguing that the conservative party should be banned because many years ago conservative party rhetoric would be almost indistinguishable from current BNP rhetoric. Edward Mosely was a conservative MP at one time. I personally believe that Ed witnessed a period in HT which was hijacked by Omar Bakri and immature zealots who ’wahabised’ the rank and file. Ed has little knowledge of HT after Omar Bakri was expelled from their ranks. HT have openly & clearly condemned 9/11 and 7/7, and even before they were under risk of getting banned, and they condemned jihadi tactics in Algeria etc as they have confronted Jihadi ideas since the 50s when they were founded.
Kaashif Nawaz, London, England
Having followed Normal Tebbits advice of many years ago I came to Spain to work 10 years ago and found that registation as a non-Spanish national was obligatory even for EU citizens. I was duly fingerprinted and photographed (as are Spanish Nationals) and issued with my Identity Card (NIE). My experience since then is that the NIE makes life so much easier! I can easily prove who I am to any Agency or Official and as importantly no-one can impersonate me when cashing cheques or using a credit card. I would recommend the Identity Card system to everyone in the UK, the advantages definitely outweigh any possible disadvantages and makes me feel safer knowing that the system makes catching terrorists far easier than in a society of complete anonymity.
David Emms, Murcia, Spain
Ironic that one can travel freely from Lisbon to Hamburg without seeing a customs officer and without showing a passport -- and using one currency all the way. As so often, Britain seems to be swimming backwards and missing out as it becomes overwhelmed with border guards, security goons and state guards with draconian powers. Not that this will stop the infiltration of terrorists from Dublin or Leeds.
Harry Collier, Malmesbury, UK
We had a Home Service Force, and it was abolished after a few short years, in 1992
James, Hatfield,
I agrre with Susanne Clark London,
This is not a war, it is a situation in which a bunch of half witted religious nutters are out to make trouble. They know they have no hope of securing their declared ideal.
But if we turn our civilization upside down to try to "battle" them, then we will have lost and they will be encouraged to carry on.
The ID cards issue is the perfect example.
By putting all this information on to a database, will make it accessible to the criminal (incluiding terrorists) classes the world over.
It is a well known fact that the precautions planned are inadequate. The one sure thing is that the database will be flawed. Because it is intended to use it to drive every aspect of life that will make life a misery for a significant percentage of the population (excluding naturally the criminals and IT consultants who will become rich as a result of it).
It is madness. Utter insanity.
cuffleyburgers, Lucca,
When I enter the UK my passport receives a cursory glance from the official at the EU citizens line. No stamp ever applied; nor questions about where I have been or where I'm going.
Recently, when passing through Charles de Gaulle for Philadelphia, the gate security queue was long and slow. An officer responded by asking that French Citizens move into a separate line for accelerated processing -- not EU citizens, mind, but French citizens only. Not something I would ever envisage for their British counterparts leaving Manchester, I thought. European integration among Britain's continental neighbours is all in the application.
Nicholas Keen, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Brown has no choice on ID Cards the same as the new
constitutuion, he has to obey orders from Europe. The
English people need to face the truth, we have lost a lot of
our national powers and are now more like an American
state like Texas than a nation, this is why Scotland wants to
deal directly with the European Union rather than go through
Westminster. Eventually there will be a European Army then
our foreign policy will be gone too. Brown is playing a very
limited hand, very, very well.
Peter, Dorset, England
"The Madrid bombers were caught because Spanish law requires ID cards "
So the 7/7 bombers were caught because British law doesn't require ID cards? Can't you ban people from reposting these boring, derivative and fatuous comments? Either come up with some positive reason to have an ID card (other than the enrichment of management consultants, who've already made off with 50 million in swag in connection with this project) or give up on it.
Citizen Dave, St. Ives, UK
A new "Border Force" ? What about HM Coastguard ? What is it for if not to police our borders ? Even now does it cover all the little creeks and harbours on our long coastline ? Money would be better spent on beefing-up the Coastguard than in setting up yet another bureaucracy. A start could be made by ordering some proper seagoing coastal vessels such as the USA and Norway have - to quote just two examples.
David Thomas, Burnham, UK
Echo the above comment that ID cards will be of no value in preventing serious crimes, including those of a terrorist nature. There is not the remotest chance that the ID Database will remain secure and free of corruption and compromise by organised crime, conversely, only those who are on the database itself will have anything to fear from it, since the only secure database, is one which never existed in the first place.
This is a child of the same organisation which brought us the CSA, only the ID database is very considerably more complex and wide ranging.
Pandora's box is being crafted by an incompetent carpenter.
Tony Miller, Southsea,
Surely the six billion pounds the government is preparing to waste on an unprecedentedly complex identity cards scheme -- six billion pounds! -- be better spent on more resources for the police and security services? For a fraction of that cost we could afford continuous surveillance of all terrorist suspects while avoiding considerable inconvenience for law-abiding citizens.
Oliver, London, England
Michael , well said, you covered all the points well, the only addition I would like is about the detention period, it has to double, anyone who knows computers understands only too well just how much time it must take to trawl through the info contained on them. In addition to time , think of the language aspect , the info must be in Arabic most of the time ?
It's a bad enough job without the time constraints & pressure Police are under to do it quickly.
John in Perth you are talking Piffle.
Susanne in London ,
How can you say this is not a war ?
It most deffinitely is, we're not talking one or two Islamists here , we are talking thousands,worldwide,maybe more.
There was only one Hitler, yes , there is only one Bin Laden who may have started all this , but now every angry Muslim has the potential to become a copy of him, it's why this battle to protect our way of life can only be decribed as a war.
We have to stop being complacent thinking all this will blow over , it won't !
Maggie Millington, Brittany, France
ID cards are long overdue. Technology is the way forward for us all. We embrace it every day of our lives. Civil liberties complaints would fall overnight ! A good honest Brit with nothing to hide.
John Fisher, Edinburgh, Scotland
Sir, for the first time in many weeks you have disappointed me with sloppy thinking and poor arguments. Re: identity cards, "America is not planning to introduce them". And so? Are we to continue to ape America - for good or evil in - in all things? By the way, in the United States, a driver's license is a de facto identitiy card. Unforgeable? No, but forging one is one more step a would-be terrorist must take.
Again, re: identity cards - and this is the piece that truly disappointed me - "and no terrorist incident would have been prevented had we had them.". Proof, sir?
John Blackley, Austin, TX, USA
ID Cards would not deter a terrorist or make a potential bomber easier to detect. A professional terrorist organization would be perfectly capable of producing authentic looking fake ID cards.
The ID project is for the Labour government a convienent method of indexing our population. Another tier of bureaucratic control, another tax on citizenship. What would the Labour government's response be to citizens who refused to be indexed? Would they face a custodial sentence? Liberty can often be lost by degrees, without our noticing. ID cards are a steath attack on our liberty.
Tony Makara, Manchester,
Michael,
Hizb ut-Tahrir are a 50 year old organisation with no history of violence. Just because you disagree with what they say, that is not enough for them to be banned. Please realise that you will not win the battle of ideas with reactions such as banning and censure. You need to engage and defeat their ideas on an intellectual level. Then it won't matter if their banned or not - they will be ignored like the socialists are after the defeat of the communist idea embodied by the USSR.
Shareef, London, UK
ID cards will make life easier for us all: Having ID card = No need for passport when travelling throught the EU. But they should be free as they are in France...
Peter Goddard, Le Rouret, France
"Dropping identity cards would not be a sign of weakness but rather of his increasing strength."
Well said. How can Brown defend Blair's wacky ideas? Blair is out. Let's scrap this bad idea. Brown without ID cards will be unstoppable in the next election. Oh...
Dave, Cardiff, UK
Reluctantly I have to concede that Brown has made an impressive and reassuring start and if this continues I think it will be very difficult for Cameron to make any head way in the polls. What I am finding difficult to deal with is that I am beginning to warm to him.
Come on David get me out of this dilemma pleeeease!
Great read as always.
D Case, Newquay,
The case for ID cards has evolved over the years according to fashion and the letters pages of the Daily Mail and Daily Express.
Initially, we were told it would stop benefit scroungers and illegal immigrants from swamping our services. Then it was decided that ID cards would eliminate identity theft and all the evils of personal fraud. Most recently, the notion is that it will somehow immunise the British Isles against the horrors of terrorism.
There seems to be an insidious, controlling streak among our rulers that would like to see us all documented, recorded, traceable and controlled.
Whatever their temporary justification, ID cards, once introduced, will be with us permanently. By the inexorable process of mission-creep, they will be needed in more and more instances, because the British mentality is to try to control the acts of any undesirable minority by imposing a requirement on everybody.
Stephen, Ashford, Kent
The Madrid bombers were caught because Spanish law requires ID cards (and requires that they be used to buy mobile phones, which were found in the wreckage). Obviously ID cards don't prevent people from committing acts of terrorism. But they prevent use of multiple identities (because the biometric data is tested for duplication with existing data), a favourite terrorist tactic.
Naturally there are arguments against as well, and people have to weigh up the pros and cons. But it trivialises the argument to say that there are no advantages.
Nick Palmer MP, Nottingham, England
Interesting spiel from MP. If we were to learn anything from the last few years it would be that there is mass alienation among Muslims globally. If we looked into the political reasons for this alienation then we may get somewhere. But that would mean questioning the brutal policies of our country which we are not prepared to do as these will continue.
adam green, London, Uk
Dear Michael, do you frequently leave the country on perfectly valid personal/business grounds? Expect to suffer unreasonable hold ups and painfully personal inspections from the 'scruffy band of officials' who check your passport. Not sure if the line 'I'm Michael Portillo, don't you know who I am?' will be a winning line for you either in such circumstances or whether 22 SAS will come flying to your rescue on each occasion!
Jonathan, Hammersmith,
The arrest of most of the Islmaist perpetrators of the Madrid train bombings is said to have been facilitated by Spain's identity card database.
chas, Gibraltar, Gibraltar
"Hizb ut-Tahrir is tolerated on the campuses in a way that the British National party would not be." What does that tell us about the state of politics in the UK, when a political party for the indigenous people of Britain is discriminated against whereas a party which promotes alien terrorism and violence within Britain is tolerated?
proud to be British, nottingham, uk
I hope the new border police are to have a distinctive uniform. How about a nice brown one, with black jack boots. And flashes on the collar that say "State Security" - or SS for short?
This is just more knee jerky stuff to support the 'security' industry and create new public sector career opportunities. Real turrists won't be affected but millions of ordinary people will be intimidated and messed around even further by the bullies and morons attracted to the job. It'll add yet more to the cost of the public sector for zero benefit.
The next step is to add borders around every town. Papers please . . .
Ray, Dartmouth,
I couldn't agree more Michael;if Brown has the vision to scrub ID Cards now,he will waltz into Downing Street at the next election.
He would pull the rug from under the Tories and The Liberals on Civil Liberty at a stroke.Has he the vision?
I doubt it.
Edwina Rigby, Blackburn, England
Must be lonely up their for Portillo on Mars .
Seems they've got a terrorism problem too .
Hey! but it cant be to do with foreign policy because he said so .
Pity he didnt read the history of the Planet Earth before he left .
He could have learnt something .
john, Perth, WA
So, a "dedicated military home defence force" seems sensible? For goodness' sake, terrorism is not a military issue. It is not a "war," whatever the rhetoric employed by Bush tells us. It is a violent crime, and should be dealt with as such. The focus should be on cooperation between the police and MI5, not extreme measures such as retinal scanning and detention without charge.
Susanne Clarke, London,
When I got my passport renewed at the British Embassy, Tokyo, I asked, obliquely, about an ID Card. Was told, "If you want an ID card, go to the Ward Office." So clearly they are out of the loop.
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Kanagawa
Brown's Border Force will consist of Immigration and Customs - it will not include the Police!! As David Davis said - it's half baked . Although I believe Jacqui Smith said later that Police "may" be involved! May?!!
Brian, Northwich,