PM: National security must be top priority

Gordon Brown has insisted that national security must be the government's top priority ahead of the crunch vote on the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

The prime minister said the government was acting on advice from the police and security services in attempting to increase the 28-day limit to 42 days.

Speaking during prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Labour MP George Howarth asked Brown to confirm it was a matter of "necessity" rather than "high principle".

Brown said: "It is a matter of necessity because of what the police and the security services have told us."

The prime minister claimed "every senior policeman and every senior member of the security services" supported the plans, which are opposed by the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, a number of top prosecutors and civil liberties' groups.

"I would have thought there would be agreement across the whole House that the first duty of a government is to protect the national security of our country," he told MPs.

"I would be failing in my duty if I did not report to the House the advice of the police and security services."

Brown stressed the "complexity and sophistication" of terror cases and pointed to the 400 computers, 8,000 CDs and 25,000 exhibits which needed to be examined in the 2006 airport case, when some people  were detained for 27 days.

Cameron

Brown also faced an attack from Conservative leader David Cameron on the issue.

Cameron reported that "his own director of public prosecutions, the very man responsible for prosecuting terrorists... doesn't support the measure".

But Brown cited support from senior police officers Ken Jones, Hugh Orde and Cameron's own security adviser Lord Stevens.

He replied: "I would not want to have to come to the House in a moment of emergency and ask for extraordinary powers."

He argued that it would is better to do so now in a "moment of calm" not a "moment of panic".

However Cameron hit back that "under the concession he's making, that is exactly what he is going to have to do" by requiring that the home secretary come to the Commons for approval for any use of the new powers.

The Tory leader said there had been no consensus and no "phalanx" of expert opinion in support of an extension.

"He hasn't made the case that it is necessary," he said of the prime minister

"Isn't it clear that terrorists want to destroy our freedom and if we trash our liberties we do their work for them?"

Brown countered that "we fail in our duty if we do not take preventative measures".

Criticisms

The prime minister also attacked Conservative criticisms of the bill as inconsistent. "It cannot be both draconian and absolutely useless," he said.

And he pointed to a supportive statement on the ConservativeHome website, which noted the measure's popularity among voters.

Cameron came back that "it is popular, but the point is that we are meant to do what is right".

And he insisted that the bill was both tough and worthless, describing it as "ineffective authoritarianism".

When faced with such a choice, "shouldn't a supposedly progressive prime minister come down on the side of liberty?" the Tory leader asked.

Brown advised him not to indulge in "opposition for opposition's sake".

"I would like to have achieved a consensus above party politics," he said "as we couldn't, the government has had to make a choice".

Clegg

Nick Clegg also quizzed the prime minister on the reasons behind recommending a "proposal [that] will not become law".

The Liberal Democrat leader argued that the bill will "be blocked" in the Lords.

"The Equality and Human Rights Commission will challenge it in court and the European Court of Human Rights will declare it illegal," he added.

"So why on earth is the prime minister playing politics with our liberties for a bill no-one thinks is necessary, no-one thinks will work in practice and everyone knows, will never reach the statute books?" he asked.

But Brown was adamant that the increase from 28 days is a move that must be made.

"When he says no-one thinks it's necessary, has he looked at what police chief constables have said?" he asked.

"Has he looked at the statements that have been made by those people who have dealt with terrorism? It is quite wrong to say that no-one thinks it is necessary."

Prejudice

Clegg, Cameron and former Conservative leader and home secretary Michael Howard all challenged Brown to explain how under one of the concessions offered to MPs, Parliament will be able to approve a detention without prejudicing any trial.

MPs could not have "sufficient evidence and information to make that judgement without either making covert intelligence public or jeopardising the legal case against the terrorist subject" Clegg argued.

The prime minister responded by telling Clegg that it is up to the home secretary to advise the House that there is "a grave terrorist threat that has occurred or is occurring, that the need for action has been urgent, that it has not been possible to assemble the necessary evidence to lay charges within the 28 days".

He went on to say: "It will be for the House to vote on the commencement order that agrees that an exceptional incident, a terrorist incident has occurred.

"It is not the business of the House to interfere in the individual case, simply to be able to vote on whether an exceptional and grave terrorist threat has occurred."