Home Secretary in anti-terror webchat
7 June 2007
Home Secretary John Reid came to Downing Street to answer your questions on the anti-terror measures.
The three-page summary document handed to MPs includes plans to extend the period terror suspects can be detained without charge by police beyond the current 28 days.
Other steps include placing convicted terrorists and their supporters on a special register, similar to the existing register for sex offenders.
The Government is seeking cross-party consensus for the new measures, and hopes to put forward a new Bill later this year.
Police will be allowed to question terror suspects after they have been charged.
The document also advocates allowing judges to impose longer sentences for crimes that were aggravated by terrorist motives, such as credit card fraudsters who are raising money for terror.
Read the transcript
John says: Apologies for being late. As you probably know I have been doing a statement in the House today and follow up meetings but now to the most important people - you.
Tino Hernandez: A lot of people will be confused as to why we need more legislation? Why do we?
Tino Hernandez
John replies: New laws and new powers are not the full answer but they are part of a continuing fight against terrorism. Just as the terorists continue to try to find new resources, new methods and new ways in which to attack so we continually have to review and where necessary update our own resources or methods or powers. Part of this means new laws.
Richard Levene, Essex: Good morning Mr Reid.
Given that the UK already has the most stringent anti-terror legislation, would the minister concede that what is needed is NOT new legislation, but the political will and resolve to enforce EXISTING legislation?
John replies: For the reason I have just given we need to review our laws the way we review everything else in order to keep pace with the nature and scale of the terrorist threat. But you are also right that we need to make sure that we enforce existing legislation. We also need to make sure that as we strengthen the powers we have we also strengthen the parliamentary and pubic scrutiny of those powers. That's the balance we seek to achieve in a democracy.
Joshua Burge: If your the watchmen, who's watching the watchmen? When you raise the limit of being able to hold someone in a cell to 90 days, without charge, do you or do you not agree that this is a violation against our civil liberties and freedoms, therefore giving the so called 'terrorists' a win? What's stopping that 90 day detention from being used to investigate other matters, and where exactly will this stop? What if on the 89th day of questioning, without charges, they are found to be innocent? I think we should look at the root of the problem of why terrorism occurs, of course we should defend ourselves against terrorism, but it is the government, in its actions by the invasion of iraq and afganistan, that has resulted in this mess. The 'War on Terror' can never be won, because every human is capable of it therefore any legislation would only hinder the law abiding public rather than detering terrorism or stopping it.
John replies:
The straight answer to who is watching the watchmen in a democracy is you are. You have the powers of the watchman to remove this government by your democratic vote. You can never remove the leaders of terrorism by democratic vote. Ultimately that's the difference between a democracy and the type of society the terorrist would want to impose on us. They act as their own judge, jury, executioner and dictators.
Of course, we also have enshrined the obligation for a judge to approve continued detention every 7 days and I'm suggesting that we could strengthen this even further by having an independent person report to Parliament - not to the Government - but to Parliament each year on the general pattern of use of any of these powers. That's another group of watchmen.
Edward Malnick: Mr Reid, can you provide an example of a case in which it would be necessary to lock up a terrorist suspect for 90 days without trial?
John replies:
You will notice that I have not asked for 90 days. What I have said is that the decision to extend to 28 days has now been bourne out by investigating the alleged plot last August when two of the suspects were interviewed right up to the 28 day limit before the police were satisfied that there were grounds for charging.
As cases become more complex, involving more people across more countries with more hard discs, laptops and means of communication, then I have said that I think there is a strengthened case for going beyond 28 days. I am attempting to examine this on a non-party basis to see if we can reach a consensus on strengthening these power but I am also offering ways of strengthening the scrutiny over the use of the powers.
Jennie Hall: The draft document highlights how difficult the balancing act is between providing protection from terrorism without eroding individual liberties. Does the Minister believe he has 'got it right'?
John replies:
I have tried to get the balance right by:
- thinking long and hard about the proposals, for almost a year now
- proposing ways of strengthening scrutiny to counter balance the strengthened powers; and
- bringing in a period of prolonged consultation, involving opposition parties and others in order to reach consensus.
These are all done in an attempt to make sure that we get the right balance.
Leonna: Hi. If the stated purpose of the War on Terror was to preserve and spread freedom and democracy, then isn't it ironic that the UK itself has gone from liberalism to authoritarianism?After all, without the Rule of Law, and without Parliamentary Sovereignty, we can no longer call ourselves deomocracy. Please may I have your comment.
John replies:
Leonna, please don't do down this country by comparing it with authoritarian regimes. Those who know anything of European history, of Nazi Europe, Fascist Italy, or Saddam's Iraq know what an "authoritiarian" regime looks like.
Under the people who are trying to impose their will on us by terrorism, there would be no freedom of speech, no freedom of ideas, no public dialogue and discussion, no tolerance of other religions, no equality of men and women or for the gay community, and certainly no on-line webchats with Government Ministers who have to defend their views. Thank God, we preserve those liberties.
Kurt Robinson: Hello,
Where is the proof that any of the 'anti-terrorism' legislation has, is, or will do anything tangible to reduce the threat of terrorism in any country?
How does prohibiting peaceful protest outside parliament protect me from 'terrorism', for example?
All I see it doing so far is it's use as a 'reason' for citizens to voluntarily give up their rights and freedoms in exchange for 'protection' from a 'dark force' called Al Queda (btw, we are STILL waiting for any concrete evidence that they are even responsible for any of the main terrorist events of recent years...).
Thanks,
Kurt
John replies:
If you still don't believe that Al Qaeda - even despite their own claims - have been involved in the terrorist attacks which have taken so many lives, including in New York and London, then I 'm probably not going to be able to convince you. It is always possible to look at an elephant and still maintain that there is no such animal.
Incidently, as I passed Parliament Square on the way here, the protest you say doesn't exist was in full display outside the gates of Parliament, courtesy of British liberties and British courts, and despite the Home Secretary!
philip: Home Secretary,
does the UK support, engage in or abet the activity of extraordinary rendition?
And why do we still tolerate the existence of Guantanamo Bay? Do those suspected of terrorism still not have the right to know the charge against them and to face that charge, on the basis of evidence, in a court of law? Clearly those in Guantanamo Bay do not. How is this acceptable?
John replies:
We do not support extraordinary rendition. We have made our view known that Guantanamo Bay should be wrapped as soon as possible. Everything we do in this country is on the basis of law and subject to judicial oversight.
Ashley Grimes: Is the burden of proof on those detaining 'terrorists' strong enough? There's plenty of examples of police over-reacting - Forest Hill, Stockwell - for that to be a real worry. What safeguards are in place?
John replies:
No intelligence is perfect. No institution is infallible. All intelligence based operations involve a degree of judgement. But the threat from terrorism is real and if the police do not act and the terrorists succeed in getting through some of the people who are the first to criticise the police over things like Forest Gate would be at the front of the queue to condemn the police for alleged failure to protect the public. It is a difficult balance but they try to get it right and thank God, so far, have done.
I am aware of at least 5 major plots since July 2005 in which lives would have been lost that the police and security services have foiled. Let's give them credit for that.
John Morgan: The problem with your new measures is that they pass powers to the police to stop anyone they wish and whilst terrorism is a problem these powers can be easily abused by the police to harass individuals. In effect this represents giving unprecented powers to tyhe police without any effective controls. Can you guarantee on behalf of this or any future government that these powers will not be abused?
John replies: Actually I have not proposed that we go ahead with "stop and search" powers. We will continue to consider this matter inside Government. But if we did proceed we would ensure there were sufficient legal safeguards in place.
mary williams: Why can't the police use telephone tapping in court? If a terrorist says something and its recorded that they want to make bombs and other things why can't courts hear it? Seems like personal rights are just stupid.
John replies: This isn't a matter of personal rights but the strong view of the security services and intelligence agencies that using telephone tap evidence in court would result in far too much of the techniques and effective operations of the security services being made public to the detriment of security operations. That is why I personally have agreed with the security services and have not been persuaded that we should use it. Others take a different view and therefore I have proposed that we get some independent way of weighing up the benefits and drawbacks of doing this.
jon: I don't understand the idea of extending sentences. Why should someone receive a longer sentence for the same crime just because it is deemed to linked to terrorism. Surely that is just like making it into a different (more serious) offence.
John replies: We have long taken the view that certain offences can be more serious, more dangerous, more evil if they are related to other motivations like racism. So where a violent offence is a racially motivated offence this has serious implications for society that we believe that the racist element should be taken into account and a more serious sentence considered. This is exactly what we are proposing in the case of terorrism related offences.
Martin Murphy: Will the proposed measures cover lapses in security such as those which took place at Birmingham airport recently?
John replies:
Better laws and strengthened powers help us to counter terrorism more effectively. What they can't do is make every institution or every human one hundred per cent safe from terrorism.
Kurt Robinson: Thankyou for your answer, but the protest that 'I said doesn't exist' (I didn't say that anyway) is only there (in recuced form) due to the legislation being passed AFTER the protest was already in progress - sounds like you need to check your own legislation!!
So there is NO concrete eveidence then?
You also avoided my question about any proof that 'anti-terrorism' laws have reduced the threat of terrorism...
Kurt
John replies:
Thanks Kurt, I do happen to know the legislation and it requires prior notice. It doesn't deny any protest. And it allows the police to restrict not to prohibit totally.
The fact that we have just seen a considerable number of people convicted under the terrorism legislation and the fact that, as I said above, to my knowledge we have prevented several potentially lethal terrorist attacks getting through, is a sufficient indication that our legislation combined with resources, dedication, technology, intelligence and all the other things that go to make up our counter terrorist effort, have achieved a great deal. However, as I have said time and time again whilst we can promise 100 per cent dedication and commitment, we can never guarantee 100 per cent success.
Elizabeth Janeway: To Mr Reid, I first would like to say thank you for all you have done for the United Kingdom and your hardwork is evident. I wondered if you can foresee a date when Britian shan't have to be concerned about terrorism?
Thank you for your time
Elizabeth Janeway, 18
John replies:
Thanks for your comments Elizabeth. Ultimately though new laws and powers and resources and effort from the security services and police are necessary, they will not be sufficient to defeat terrorism. We will only do that by the whole community, every section of the British society uniting in an understanding of the threat to our values - the values of resolving our differences through democratic discussion not violence.
The insistence that all our citizens, men and women are equal, a tolerance for each other's religious views, freedom of speech under the law - that the threat to all of these values is a threat to all of us and our way of life.
That is why the struggle for ideas and values will only be won if everyone unites against the extremists - those extremists on the one side who tell us that this a war by Muslims on the rest of society and those extremists on the other side who try to convince Muslims that this is a war by everyone on Islam. Both of them at both of those extremes. From the BNP on the one side and the apologists for Al Qaeda on the other side who preach division can only be ultimately defeated by all of us uniting. If we do that we will give ourselves the best chance of ultimately defeating the extremists and the terrorists.
Christi: Mr Home Secretary,
Your statement to parliament today seemed more conciliatory than, perhaps, some previous statements on issues of security. Does this indicate that you're attempting to elevate security/terrorism issues above politics? It seems to me that issues of national security should be immune from domestic politics. It would certainly be a relief to see all the parties pulling together on this one issue, for the good of the nation.
John replies: I agree with you entirely. Wherever possible issues of national security should be addressed through national consensus and raised above party politics. I believed this when I was an Opposition spokesman on defence, when I was Armed Forces Minister, when I was Secretary of State for Defence and when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The last one shows just what can be achieved when we bring together people even from the most disparate political positions. I still believe this now as Home Secretary when it comes to ensuring our national security.
John says: Many thanks for your questions. The fact that some of them have been critical, some of them showed disagreement and all of them probing is not a sign of our weakness but of the strength of our own way of doing things. Whatever may divide us is as of nothing compared to the yawning chasm between all of us on this webchat and those who would impose their will upon us by the arbitrary and murderous use of violence.
