Prevention of Terrorism Bill

The letter below, re Prevention of Terrorism Bill, was sent to as many MP’s, Lords and Ladies as I could afford to send it to. Immediately below is part of a reply from Lord Stathclyde. Dated 2.3.2005.

Let me make clear at the outset that the Conservative Party is strongly opposed to what the Government is proposing. Terrorism should not be a party political issue. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition Michael Howard QC MP’ sought, with the other party leaders, to find a way to counter the threat of terrorism without resorting to the dangerous measures the Government has put forward. The Labour Party, however, appears determined to use its majority to force these controversial measures through the House of Commons in the face of principled opposition from all sides of the House.

You rightly raise concerns about individuals being placed under house arrest before their cases are heard. In itself, that is worrying, but what the Government is proposing goes further. Under its Prevention of Terrorism Bill, individuals can be placed under house arrest without the intention of ever bringing them to trial. (My emphasis)

There is much more in the detail to which the Conservative Party is opposed (for example, the Government says its Bill must be considered rapidly, despite an admission from the Home Secretary that neither he nor the security services believes there is an immediate need for the strongest and most controversial measures), but there is also the more general issue of where these powers could lead in the long-term.

My colleague David Davis MP, the Shadow Home Secretary, has already highlighted two worrying outcomes that could arise in the long-term.

Two weeks ago the Prime Minister apologised to the ‘Guildford four’ for a miscarriage of justice following the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings. It is perceived wisdom that a feeling that someone must be convicted existed at the time, and clouded the normally objective judgement of the police and judicial system. How much more susceptible to this sort of emotional, reactionary pressure would a politician, the Home Secretary, be?

Mr Davis has also told the Home Secretary that measures which are perceived to be unjust will only act in the long term as recruiting sergeants for the very organisations and individuals that he believes pose a threat to the State.

If the government refuses to allow proper debate of these controversial measures in Parliament and if fundamental amendments are not passed, the Conservative Party will continue to oppose the Bill. END.