|
Key issues
> Counter-Terrorism Legislation
>
Back
An open letter
outlining the reasons I voted in favour of the new
Counter-terrorism legislation.
Dear friend,
Before I was elected to parliament I was a human rights
lawyer. I represented people with complaints against the
police and was chairperson of human rights charity Liberty.
As an MP, I appreciate I have to balance the rights of
suspects against everyone's safety and security. Terrorism
attacks our most fundamental right: the right to life.
Living and working in London, the people I represent are
perhaps at particular risk.
So it's a difficult balance to strike - and a subject that
rightly arises strong opinions on both sides. My job is to
listen to my constituents, do my best to influence the
proposals and ultimately decide how to vote.
In 2005, I voted against Tony Blair's proposal that
pre-charge detention be extended to 90 days. I also proposed
that the limit be set at 28 days, which became the current
law.
To me, the key questions are: how much time is required by
the police to obtain and consider the evidence before
deciding whether someone should be charged or released? And
what checks are in place to ensure that the power of
detention is not abused?
It's clear that terrorist operations are constantly
increasing in complexity and scale. Just compare recent
attacks and plots against say how the IRA operated in the
1970s. The use of modern technology to communicate securely
across the world. The use of multiple languages and
dialects. Operations being organised and directed on a
global scale.
Obtaining and decrypting evidence has become more complex as
the terrorist leaders try to stay ahead of our security
services. As technology advances, this trend is going to
continue.
This is not just the view of faceless security experts. The
five most senior police officers in the UK agree. So does
Lord Alex Carlile, the universally-respected Lib Dem peer
who acts as the independent reviewer of how terrorism
legislation is working.
I believe we need to respond to this challenge, but in a way
that ensures any new powers are only used when truly
justified. In my view, the original proposal from the
government didn't achieve this.
To their credit (and unlike in 2005) both the Prime Minister
and Home Secretary have been genuinely attempting to reach a
consensus among MPs, civil liberty groups and other
interested parties. For example, last month I brought the
Home Secretary to Tooting so she could discuss this issue
with local community leaders.
I've spent a lot of time lobbying the government, resulting
in a number of improvements to the legislation. I'm
particularly pleased that the government has agreed to a
compensation package for anyone released without charge
after being detained for more than 28 days.
Taken together, the changes mean that the higher detention
limit can only be used in exceptional circumstances. It will
be temporary and subject to the approval of parliament and
stringent judicial safeguards.
Bringing forward these proposals was never going to make the
government more popular. So why did the Cabinet decide to do
so? Simply put, because being in government brings
responsibilities.
It's much better to have this debate now, rather than rush
something through parliament to help the police investigate
a terrorist atrocity - or worse, when they are trying to
foil an expected attack. Based on my background in human
rights law, I judged that the final proposal contained
sufficient safeguards. That is why I voted for this
legislation.
Yours sincerely,
Sadiq
13th June 2008
Return to Key
Issues Page
|
|
|
