A House Divided?
As the House of Lords prepares to vote on legislation to extend the detention limit of terrorist suspects without charge from 28 to 42 days, Ipsos's most recent study of MPs reveals that views in the House of Commons are somewhat split, both on the likely impact of the legislation and on whether the Parliament Act should be used to force the legislation through.
As the House of Lords prepares to vote on legislation to extend the detention limit of terrorist suspects without charge from 28 to 42 days, Ipsos's most recent study of MPs reveals that views in the House of Commons are somewhat split, both on the likely impact of the legislation and on whether the Parliament Act should be used to force the legislation through.
Three in ten MPs (31%) believe that a 42-day detention limit will have a positive impact on combating terrorism in the UK, while one in five (22%) believe it will have a negative impact and the same level (22%) believe it will make no difference.
There is a clear division in views on this issue by party. Over half of Labour MPs (55%) believe the legislation will make a positive difference to combating terrorism, while no Conservative MP we spoke to takes this view. It will be a concern to the Labour leadership that one in five Labour MPs (20%) believe that the impact of the legislation will either be neutral or negative. Seven in ten (71%) Conservative MPs take a similar view, with overall almost half of them (47%) believing the impact will be negative.
There is also a divergence of views between front and back bench Labour MPs. Seven in ten (71%) Labour Ministers believe the 42-day legislation will have a positive impact, though even here 14% think the impact will be neutral.
The most common reason for MPs believing the legislation will have a positive impact is that it will give the security services sufficient time to build a case (22% of all MPs cite this). The most common reasons for being negative is the belief that it will be seen as an attack on Muslim communities (12% cite this), that they see no evidence to justify the change (nine per cent) and that it will erode civil liberties (seven per cent). Many also believe the legislation will not be particularly effective - one in nine (11%) are not sure it will make a difference and seven per cent believe it will not be widely used.
There are similar divisions in the views of MPs on the question of using the Parliament Act to force this legislation through, though more MPs believe that this should not be used (40%) than believe it should (32%). Over half (56%) of Labour MPs believe the Parliament Act should be used (though 15% believe it should not), while no Conservative MP we spoke to believes the Parliament Act should be used, and two in three Conservative MPs believe it should not be used. There is once again a front/back bench split among Labour MPs, with 86% of Labour Ministers believing that the Parliament Act should be used.
The most common reasons among MPs for supporting the use of the Parliament Act is that this is seen as a vitally important issue (14% of MPs say this - all of whom are Labour MPs) and that the House of Commons should prevail as the elected house (nine per cent - again all of whom are Labour). The most likely reasons for believing that the Parliament Act should not be used is that 42-day detention was not in the Labour Party's manifesto (14% of MPs cite this) while one in ten MPs (10%) oppose its use as they don't agree with the 42-day legislation.
