Clarity on extent of 42 day detention

Jacqui Smith:

Q1  Is it correct that it will be within the Secretary of State’s power to make the reserve power available in relation to any investigation of a terrorism offence or offence with a terrorism connection which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment?

After making the order, the Home Secretary must be in a position to state that she is satisfied there is a grave exceptional terrorist threat and that the power is needed to investigate that threat and bring those responsible to justice. It is in that context that the power is made exercisable and the order may only be made available if there is a report as required under the proposed new clause 22 from the DPP/police. This can only be made in relation to persons being questioned for a serious terrorist offence). The reserve power could not, therefore be made available simply because the police were investigating a terrorism offence that carries a sentence of life imprisonment. For example, it could not be used in relation to an investigation into a plot to kidnap and maim a group of people because this would not constitute serious loss of human life or serious damage to human welfare or the security of the UK.

However it is correct that once the order is in force it is available in relation to those suspected of the commission of a serious terrorist offence. It is not practical to limit the operation of the power to those suspected of involvement in a specific terrorist threat. In a fast-moving situation, multiple conspiracies or other threats could be revealed and it would be impractical in those circumstances to be required to make multiple, possibly overlapping, orders. The order will in any event expire after 30 days and then only if it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament within seven days of the order being laid before Parliament.

If we are going to discriminate, let’s discriminate for the right reasons

My moan today is prompted by Harriet Harman’s defence of her positive discrimination proposals, which is wrong and muddle headed on a few levels:

The Equality Minister Harriet Harman today defended controversial plans to encourage firms to discriminate in favour of female and ethnic minorities job candidates.

Remember, discrimination in favour of one is necessarily discrimination against another.

The new Equalities Bill is also expected to force employers to disclose salary structures in a bid to make the pay gap between men and women more transparent.

Responding to criticism that the plans could discriminate against white men, Ms Harman said “you don’t get progress if there isn’t a bit of a push forward”.

What happened to “equality of opportunity”?

The minister told GMTV: “Most women are going out to work and they are just as committed to their jobs - the money that they earn is important to the household budget so they should be paid fairly.

They should be paid according to their market value, regardless of how important their pay is to the household budget. That is the fair way of doing it.

“Yet listen to this figure - if you are a woman working part-time you get 40% less per hour on average than a man working full-time.

“Now either this is because women are not up to the job or else there is discrimination against them. You can’t challenge discrimination when it’s kept swept under the carpet.

Or it’s because she is comparing apples with oranges: why on earth is male full time pay being compared to female part time pay? Is Harman suggesting that full time and part time workers are paid the same - that therefore the only difference is gender?  Well, she’s wrong, and should look again at the figures.

Is it because, as Tim Worstall suggested, such people want to squeeze the largest number they can from the dataset?

I repeat, if we’re going to discriminate, let’s discriminate for the right reasons.  Claiming there is a pay gap between male full time and female part time workers and therefore  we must discriminate against male full time workers in favour of female workers is just plain wrong.

Trust us, we’re the government

The BBC:

More than 600 staff at HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have been disciplined for accessing personal or sensitive data, it has been revealed.

In a Commons written reply, Treasury Financial Secretary Jane Kennedy said that in many cases the penalty for staff was dismissal.

There were 238 people disciplined in 2005, 180 in 2006, and 192 in 2007.

The secretary was responding to a question from shadow home affairs spokesman James Brokenshire.

Ms Kennedy said the figures showed “the strength of HMRC’s disciplinary procedures”.

The numbers represented less than 1% of HMRC staff, she added.

Ms Kennedy said HMRC has a “strict policy forbidding staff to access customer records unless they have a legitimate business need.

“Breaches of this policy are taken seriously and any breach will result in the commencement of disciplinary proceedings.

“Each case is treated on its merits but in many cases the disciplinary penalty for breach in dismissal.”

HMRC was formed in April 2005, when the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise departments merged.

Not all data storage is bad.  Far from it.

What matters is what is stored, what is its purpose, who has access to it, what happens when access is abused.

The more personal data is stored in one place, the higher the value of the database, and the more likely it will be abused.

Gordon Brown’s asset freezing rule unlawful

The BBC:

Rules imposed under UN laws to enable the freezing of terror suspects’ assets are not lawful because they “bypassed” Parliament, the High Court has ruled.

Well, not just that they bypassed Parliament (after all, the Executive is entitled to make particular types of new rules without need for Parliament) but that the nature of the rule combined with the manner of its introduction made it unlawful.

Mr Justice Collins allowed challenges by five men whose assets were frozen under the Treasury-imposed powers.

The men are designated terror suspects but have not been charged.

The rules are seen as a key plank of government anti-terror strategy. The Treasury said it was “disappointed” with the judgement and would appeal.

Sure.  God forbid they should accept the judgement and just get on with doing things properly.

The five, known as A, K, M, Q and G, were designated terror suspects last year under two Orders in Council set up to apply UN Security Council resolutions in the UK.

Suspected of “facilitating acts of terrorism”, they were denied control of their own property and money.

Mr Justice Collins said Orders in Council were not subject to the same Parliamentary scrutiny as normal legislation, each being laid before Parliament the day after it was made and coming into force the day after.

He said this was not the proper way to approach asset-freezing and that Parliament should step in.

He gave the Treasury leave to go to the Court of Appeal, delaying quashing the orders until then.

A good compromise for those concerned about judges ‘usurping’ Parliamentary powers.  But you see this quite often in judgements - the judiciary don’t want to be a blunt instrument, in effect they say “this is wrong for that reason, try again ASAP but keep the powers in the meantime”.

Jonathan Crow QC, for HM Treasury, had told him the UK government would be left in violation of a UN Security Council order were the orders to be quashed immediately.

The Treasury said the asset-freezing regime and individual asset freezes would remain in place pending the appeal.

A spokesman said the asset-freezing regime made an “important contribution” to national security by helping prevent funds being used for terrorism and was “central to our obligations under successive UN Security Council resolutions”.

Lawyers for the five had argued in court that the asset-freezing regime was harsh and unfair - arguments the judge said were “entirely persuasive”.

He stressed he was not saying that freezing orders should not be made to comply with UN resolutions but said parliamentary approval should be attained.

Exactly!

The ruling comes as a blow to the prime minister, who declared the Treasury “a department for security” when he introduced the rules.

Under them, some 70 suspects are currently listed and bank accounts containing about £500,000 have been frozen.

Solicitors for the five men welcomed the ruling, saying it was of “the highest constitutional importance”.

The men had complained to the court that the orders had a “devastating and humiliating” impact on their lives.

Their solicitors said in a statement: “The ruling today has shown that the government is willing to sacrifice the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens, including the fundamental constitutional right that only Parliament can take away basic freedoms, when they think it convenient to do so.”

They said the rules were not only harsh but “absurd”.

“We have the madness of civil servants checking Tesco receipts, a child having to ask for a receipt every time it does a chore by running to the shops for a pint of milk and a neighbour possibly committing a criminal offence by lending a lawnmower.”

The Terrorism (UN Measures) Order 2006 and the 2006 al-Qaeda and Taleban (UN Measures) Order were made under section 1 of the 1946 UN Act [why doesn't the BBC link to them?  They take seconds to find!] in order to implement resolutions of the UN Security Council.

The 1946 Act allows Orders in Council to be used to bring in special powers only where it is “necessary and expedient”, the judge said.

He said fundamental human rights were involved, adding: “In my view it is essential that Parliament considers the way in which what is required should be achieved and it is not proper to do it by relying on section 1 of the 1946 Act.”

Of course, the Government would claim that the special powers were “necessary and expedient”.  Is a judge well placed to decide?  A difficult question.

But certainly Parliament should be debating such powers.

Here we go again!

The Abolishing Parliament Act rears it’s ugly head again.

SpyBlog has the details.