Blair talks tough but keeps options open on 90-day clause

· Terror bill Clarke prepares get-out compromise on detention
· PM presses security case on Labour rebels

Tony Blair pursued a twin track strategy yesterday, making the "unanswerable case" for the detention of terrorist suspects without charge for 90 days, while privately sanctioning his home secretary, Charles Clarke, to prepare a political escape hatch.

The thinking was simple. Mr Blair - in his diminished state - simply did not believe he had the backbench support to push 90 days through the Commons, and needed to ensure a fallback amendment to the bill by last night if he was to win support for a longer period of detention than 28 days, the length favoured by many Labour backbenchers.

At the same time, Mr Blair still wanted to keep 90 days in play for tomorrow's vote just in case his parliamentary party had succumbed to his and the police argument, or else the Conservative party balked at pitting itself against the police on a security issue. After all, it might only take a few Tory abstentions for 90 days to slip through.

It was not quite a case of "hard cop Blair, soft cop Clarke", but the prime minister sounded the more defiant note while Mr Clarke - in talks with the other opposition parties - prospected for a "second best" consensus around a detention of 42 days, or longer.

Mr Blair's strategy was blunt. He tried to push the issue of his personal political authority to one side, and press MPs to concentrate on the security case for 90 days being forcefully put by the police and heavily supported by the public, as shown by the latest poll in today's Times.

To that effect, he dedicated one of his monthly press conferences to the theme, and made sure the police sent their top cops, such as Andrew Hayman, the Metropolitan police assistant commissioner, to the media to argue the case for 90 days. Some police chiefs telephoned their local MPs at the weekend, whilst Mr Hayman yesterday even met with wavering Labour MPs

Mr Blair marshalled every emotive, and evidential, point to remind people of the horror of the July 7 attacks.

"We should never forget that this terrorist incident was the worst this country has ever had," he said. He repeatedly tried to take himself, and the issue of his political authority, out of the equation by saying that "this is not a plan dreamt up by me, or the government. It is what the most senior police officers have asked us to do."

Mr Clarke at the Home Office was vainly working on Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general, as well as Labour MPs to see if he could assemble a political consensus around 42 or 49 days.

So Mr Blair chose to take his risky hardline message to a packed and potentially hostile meeting of his parliamentary party. He offered only one compromise. MPs would be required to vote again on the 90 days' detention after a year. Mr Clarke confirmed this position just before 10pm yesterday.

Some influential MPs argued this ran to counter to the promise made last week to MPs by Mr Clarke to seek compromise. But Mr Blair ensured a risky bolt hole.

A loyalist backbencher, Janet Anderson, with government knowledge, tabled the fallback option of 60 days detention, way above what most people judged the Commons would wear at the day's start.

Overall the day's events saw the government hardening its opinion and trying to leave the Conservatives isolated or, better still, split. Even in the topsy turvy word of modern politics, it is still striking that Labour is siding with the police on an issue of national security, and the Tories are siding with the Liberal Democrats to accuse Labour of running a criminal system worthy of apartheid.

Still, many Labour rebels are unmoved by the Blair-police pincer. They insist they are elected to use their judgment, and balance competing interests, not act as a rubber stamp for police demands.

Why do police want 90 days?

Detective tasks that take time

Police chiefs say that their advocacy of a maximum 90-day detention period for terrorist suspects is based on sound professional judgment and practical needs.

Andy Hayman, the Scotland Yard assistant commissioner in charge of counter-terrorist operations, said the global nature of modern terrorism required much more police time to obtain the best evidence for convictions.

Decoding encrypted computer files, sifting through forensic science material and viewing CCTV footage are three of the most time-consuming tasks, according to the police. For example, the information on one computer hard drive seized by police recently equates to a paper mountain 66,000ft high.

The Metropolitan police seized 5,000 hard drives and 80,000 video tapes after the July 7 bombings, and only finished searching a rubbish dump in West Yorkshire in the past fortnight. It took two weeks to take an unknown substance out of a bath in a Leeds flat where the bombs were allegedly prepared.

Mr Hayman argued that rushing to charge suspects was not feasible if such computer or forensic science material was the main line of inquiry, and could be counter-productive if later information defined the roles of those involved in a conspiracy more clearly. He denied police had proposed a deliberately long period of time and would be content if the government has to compromise on less. "It's not some sort of bartering tool," he said. "We've analysed investigations for the last three or four years and our professional judgment is sitting at 90 days."

Swamping each case with more officers would not necessarily quicken the process, as detectives must meticulously analyse each piece of material and follow up the evidence.

Suspects would not be subjected pointlessly to repeated questioning on the same topics but would be reinterviewed when new evidence came up. Police would apply to a senior high court judge every seven days to extend custody, probably at closed hearings.

However, the interception of communications commissioner and the intelligence service commissioner - both senior judicial figures - said last week that the use of encrypted material by terrorist suspects was not as widespread as had been expected.

The Security Service, MI5, has not lobbied for 90 days' detention, regarding it as a matter for the police, who are primarily responsible for gathering evidence for court proceedings.
Rosie Cowan and Richard Norton-Taylor


Tomorrow: MPs will vote on a range of amendments on the terror bill covering the time the police will be allowed to detain terror suspects without charge.

They are likely to vote on retaining 14 days, rising to 28 days and possibly 42 days. Ministers are unlikely to press for the police proposition of 90 days, unless there is a strong chance of avoiding Tony Blair's first Commons defeat.

Thursday: The third reading of the terror bill will tidy up any loose ends, and prepare the ground for the battle ahead in the Lords.

Late November: The terror bill will reach the Lords, with peers likely to cut the period of detention back to 14 days, and add extra judicial oversight. MPs are likely to consider any further amendments in the new year.