Liberties, Principles and Politics

In what has been a week of up and downs in the world of politics the head lining issue has been without a doubt the controversial 42 days detention without charge rule, which was passed by the House of Commons with a majority of nine. This move has now seen the resignation of Shadow Home Secretary David Davis.

The new 42 day rule, contained in the Counter-Terrorism Bill that will now been sent to the House of Lords, is an extension of the 28 day rule that was passed in the Terrorism Act 2006 and is the latest step in the wave of anti-terrorism laws causing widespread debate all across the country.

This overhaul of counter-terrorism laws started in 2000 where a basic 48-hour detention, expandable to seven days with the permission of the courts, was introduced. This was then doubled to 14 days in 2003 and then increased once again to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006. That four-week limit came after former Prime Minister Tony Blair was defeated in a bid to introduce 90 days with and the revised limit was seen as a fair compromise between the protection of one’s liberty, and the protection of others. The current Prime Minister Gordon Brown initially mentioned extending the limit to 56 days near the beginning of his Premiership but later settled on the 42 day limit which we now see taking steps to becoming legislation.

This raises an obvious question as to why the ever extending detention limit needs yet another increase.

The Prime Minister and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith both claimed there may be occasions when the police needed a lot longer to hold a terrorism suspect before they could bring a charge for a specific crime because of the "scale and complexity" of a threat. A yet there have only been a few situations where the 28 day limit has come near to running out with there being only five cases which have some down to the wire. This would seem to suggest that such an increase as we have seen is be no means necessary regardless of what the powers that be would have us believe.

One does not mean to suggest that I am against the punishment of terrorists or the protection of the ‘innocent’ people that feel their wrath, but this 42 day rule is not about punishing terrorists, it is merely about punishing possible terrorists. The difference may, on first glance, seem small as many would argue that prevention is cheaper than the cure. However, one has to ask who or what is a terrorist? Are they people who threaten lives? Or liberties? If it is the latter and it is the idea of attacking the liberties that make them public enemy number one, would this not bring the government itself into the bracket of terrorist and therefore open to 42 days detention without charge? How would Gordon Brown like his new law then? Maybe it or time this government stopped looking at the law affecting the guilty, but how it affects the innocent. In the idea of detention without charge the possibility of miscarriages of justice increases greatly. Whilst a successful conviction enabled by the detention of the suspect for a large amount of time may be seen as a victory for the government, if not for everyone in this country, what do we do if the detained suspect is in fact innocent? Do we then turn around pat the individual on the back and say ‘Awfully sorry old chap, got the wrong end of the stick. No hard feelings?’ and hope they laugh a little and move on, joking to his friends and family about his little run in with the law down his local pub? Some how I doubt such an error will be greeted with such humour. Here we can see the major injustice of such a law, an injustice which was meant to be avoided with the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

It is could be said that rebel Labour bank bencher Dianne Abbot, one of the thirty six Labour MP’s to vote against the bill, had it right when she suggested that the move taken by the Cabinet was not so much about improving a faulty law, but a matter of political point scoring with the cabinet eager to show themselves as ‘tough on terror’ with the Conservative party being shown to take a far more softer line when it came to terrorism. This can, in part be backed up by the view taken by Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg who took the view that this Bill will never become law. He took the view that the proposed Bill will not pass through the House of Lords, where Labour do not hold a majority, and even if it did there would be an inevitable conflict in the European Court of Human Rights where is could be argued that such a detention without charge was against Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which suggests that as a bare minimum the accused individual should be informed of the charges against them ‘promptly’. Although, this phase is by no means specific, one could quite easily argue that 42 days is anything but prompt. Is it that we see with this Bill Gordon Brown fighting against the ghost of his predecessor, keen to succeed where Blair failed regardless of the cost or long term damage to his reputation? With the economy sinking away from the apparent golden age that was Tony Blair’s Premiership, if only in an economic sense, this Bill could be said to illustrate that Brown is an improvement on Tony Blair by being able to succeed where his precursor had failed.

However, the resignation of David Davis may have given Gordon Brown the smoke cover he needs to survive and recover from this very weak political position. With thirty six rebel MPs the Bill’s success came down to the votes of nine DUP members proving crucial. Amid claims of political bribery in what appears to be a ‘win at all costs’ situation the principled stance taken Mr Davis, MP for Haltemprice and Howden, appears to have taken focus of the desperate Prime Minister and onto himself. Despite DUP ministers saying that they voted on ‘national security grounds’ the general consensus, aired in the House of commons after the vote was heard, was that their votes came at a price to our leader.

And yet, one must look at the move taken by Mr Davis and all but admire it. Although it is fair to say that the move has put the former Tory front bencher’s career at risk in forcing a by-election in his East Yorkshire constituency, given the lack of competition that appears to be putting their hat in the ring the risk seems more calculated. Whilst it is possible that he will lose his position in the shadow cabinet Mr Davis appears to have offered a slap in the face of Gordon Brown whilst also standing a large chance of retaining his seat in the House of Commons. With the Liberal Democrats declining the chance to stand in the election, hosted in a constituency that was a main target for the party during 2005, it looks like the challenge for the seat will come down to Davis and the Labour Party with the main issue, of course, being the 42 day rule. In a move which has been described as a purely ‘personal decision’ by Conservative Party Leader David Cameron, Davis has taken an unprecedented move by putting his principles about the need for the protection of individual liberties before letting a law, which and uncertain future, pass by without notice. Is this a sign of the personal rather than party politics beginning to grasp the political world? With one man attempting to show that anything Tony Blair can do he can do better, and another risking his political future in an attempt to make a ‘stand’ against the erosion of civil liberties. Such a stand will turn what is a by-election in to an opinion poll over the detention extension, with Davis sitting in the Blue corner firmly against such a law, and Labour sitting in the red corner crying yes, where it looks like they will be joined by Sun newspaper editor Cameron McKenzie, a supporter of the 42 day rule. The inclusion of Mr McKenzie as a candidate will only add fuel to what Labour have called a stunt, whilst also splitting any yes votes between them, giving Davis two weak opponents, rather than one strong one, where two right wing candidates will argue for votes whilst agreeing in theory and Mr Davis will appear the only candidate thinking logically over the matter. Surely for the government to win the one topic election they need to fight from a position of strength, a position which that do not possess in national government, never mind in the locality. The inclusion of Mr McKenzie as a candidate will only succeed in making a weak position weaker and merely help Mr Davis and the Conservative party to a huge victory over the government. Such a victory that means more than one seat in parliament, but can be seen as gauging true public opinion away from the opinion polls that Gordon Brown relied on so much in the reasoning for the introduction of the Bill.

With the topic to form the focus of debate though out the run up to the by-election and beyond it seems to say that such a victory for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party is all but concrete, with a defeat in the by-election likely and support for his policies thinning by the day, Gordon Brown may want to enjoy his time in Number 10, whilst painting the walls nice shade of blue..

Rent Increase for Campus Businesses

We have recently been informed that the rent paid by the independent retail units on campus are to double in the very near future which could see an end to the world of the cheap takeaway that is currently available to campus dwellers.

Businesses such as Pizzetta Rebuplica and the Fish and Chip shop are soon to see their rents increase by more then 100% in the next step of the university master plan which is currently being undertaken by the powers that be in a move that is said to be making the chargers more representative of the so called lucrative position enjoyed by the independent retailers on campus.

Many of the leases extended to the businesses ran out at the end of December 2007 and the University management have employed a third party to calculate the rent that should be paid by each individual company based on the size of the unit occupied and the location of the business on campus. The on going negotiations between the lease holders and this third party, believed to be based in Manchester has led to constant renewals of short term leases, with the relevant legal costs being covered by the small business and not the University, and a great deal of uncertainty as to the future of the businesses on campus.

Whilst it is unsure of the impact such an increase in the rent will have on the prices charged by each individual outlet yet one can safely assume that the increase will be noticeable (not sure about the wording perhaps too ambiguous and not definitive enough). A 100% increase in costs will logically lead to an increase in prices of more than 100% (given the probable decrease in demand) if the same profit margin was to be kept.

This raises the question over who really loses out in all of this. The University? Surely not as there will be replacement businesses to fill in the holes left by the current occupants of the campus world, with the introduction of chains being a large possibility given the high charges that are being asked for. The individual retailers? Well, partially. Although the increase in costs is obviously undesirable an increase in prices will go some way to keep each business at the same level as they have been in the past, if even slightly lower. The students? Now I think we have got it! An increase in rent will lead to an increase in the prices paid by every student who uses an outlet on campus. Given the low income of some students and the ever-rising rent of on-campus accommodation and an increase in tuition fees it would appear that campus living is becoming a virtue only made available to those who have not fallen far from the money tree. One would question the University management’s logic in out pricing the university campus when compared to the easily accessible more affordable accommodation and outlets in the city centre and around it.

Whilst the full impact of increased costs of on campus living one can logically assume that the expense to the students will only increase. Take away anyone? No, I think I’ll stay in and cook.

Independents Day – A Follow Up

Following an article I wrote on the closure of the Innovation and Enterprise Unit, entitled ‘Independent’s Day’, I manages to track down two members of staff from that department to see if they wished to give me their opinions on the university’s decision.

Robbie Smith graduated from the old Independent studies department, now the Innovation and Enterprise Unit, in 1988 and began teaching there in 1994. Davey Garland also did an Independent Studies degree after being recruited from Ruskin College Oxford where he was doing a foundation degree. He has been a member of staff since 2001. The Independent Studies Department started life back in 1973 and changed its name to the Innovation and Enterprise Unit at the beginning of the century is set to end its life at Lancaster University at the end of the academic year due to a continuing decrease in numbers over the last few years.

Both Robbie and Davey expressed their dismay at the University’s decision saying that the University have chosen not to use the full potential of the department and seemed to basing their decisions on fiscal grounds. Though, one has to question how successful a department can realistically be if they are denied the opportunity to recruit through the UCAS system which was described by Robbie as ‘Not the healthiest way to recruit students’ with Davey saying ‘If you don’t go out and recruit from feeder colleges like I was or go to UCAS and are restrained to recruit within a university you’re hands are tied and you will go down.’ Robbie was quick to add that it is no guarantee that being allowed to recruit the conventional way would have provided the boost to numbers that is desired by those higher up in University management but there would have been the potential to do so and it seems that, logically speaking, this option should come before any closure of a department.

The two members of staff were concerned with the impact the closure would have on the ‘non-traditional’ students that are in the University. The closure of the department ends its focus on active learning and developing the skills of critical reflection upon one's learning, the department also used alternative formats to give those students who found the fundamentals of essay writing difficult to grasp another way to present their work. This would seem to be a move away from the idea of all inclusive learning that we hear the government harking on about and a move towards a one-size fits all university education. Davey said that this move will add more pressure on those non-traditional learners and eventually something will break, if it has not done so already. It appears that the department could have been used to allow those non-traditional students who found the standard black and white degree scheme a challenge, almost as if it was acting as a safety net to catch those that the system was failing. It was also suggested that an alternative to a two or three module part one system, where all the modules are kept within individual departments, could be to say that all students do a module similar to those taught by the Innovation and Enterprise Unit and do two modules in other departments as they wish. This would allow all students to improve their study and research skills benefiting both the students and the University as a whole.

Robbie finished the interview with a final comment in reference to the department as a whole: ‘Doesn’t that sound like something that would attract students to the university and possibly even a money spinner. This is an alternative vision that the university has chosen not to explore.’

There appears to have been a narrow view of the situation taken by the university’s management when it comes to the Innovation and Enterprise Unit. Setting recruitment targets without letting them compete with the bigger departments within the University is similar to being asked to unlock a door with the wrong key. Whilst it is as yet unclear what affect the closure of the department will have, especially on those non-traditional learners Davey mentioned, but what does seem clear is that the University could have used the department to complement other departments to the advantage of the university, but more importantly the students.

Independents Day

It has come to our attention that a proposal is being put forward to close the Department of Innovation and Enterprise. Should the proposal be passed it would see the end of the Part 2 degree scheme that is currently in place, with Part 1 still being available in the Department of Continuing Education.

Frank Dawes, a spokesperson for the Department, said the decision had been taken due to the decreasing number of students over the last few years enrolling in the unique courses offered by the department, such as ‘Political Hollywood’, and with the disappearing free choice module which is traditionally available the first years these numbers were not seen as likely to increase. Nr Dawes said the ‘degree scheme was from a different era and its time had come to an end’.

The Independent degree scheme was founded in 1973 with the idea to “make the individual student a producer of his own curriculum rather than a consumer of one designed for students in general”. This unique idea provided a welcome break from the other black and white degrees at the time allowing a student to research an area which they found particularly interesting, as opposed to the areas decided upon by the specific department or school. The course was not only unique in its make-up, but also in its teaching method. Whilst the traditional degree schemes involved lectures and exams Independent Studies had, and still does to this day, promoted research based work in a format that was completely coursework assessed. The department also made great emphasis on the use of alternative formats for coursework, taking a preference to presentations, be it through power point or a film, as opposed to the standard essay.

However as the black and white departments or schools moved towards the multi-coloured rainbow that is independent learning the departments days were numbered and, it appears, have now come to an end. Many of the courses that were first pioneered by the Department of Innovation and Enterprise are going to be available in different departments around the university, but it is a fond farewell to the trailblazers of independent learning in Lancaster University.