Tories seek clarification on terror measures
Conservative leader Michael Howard has written to the Lord Chancellor calling for clarification on the government’s new anti-terrorism legislation.
Although he makes clear that his party supports the government on its proposed new laws, Mr Howard questioned the “extent to which they have been fully thought through”.
Tony Blair’s announcement last week of the tightening of deportation powers and new legislation banning radical Islamic groups and imams has encountered considerable opposition.
The Lib Dems accused the prime minister of leaving “a series of post-it notes on his desk instructing people to float one half-baked plan after another”, and leader Charles Kennedy said the announcements meant the government could no longer rely on his support.
While the Conservatives stress they have long been calling for such anti-terrorism measures, Mr Howard has expressed concern about some of the proposals.
“Some of the measures do raise serious questions – in particular the extent to which they have been fully thought through,” he wrote to Lord Falconer today.
His first query was about Mr Blair’s suggestion that the Human Rights Act might need amending for the anti-terror measures to go through, saying: “It is not clear what he meant by this.
“As you know we have always had reservations about the principles behind that act and the extent to which it enables the judiciary to second guess parliament. I would be grateful if you could clarify exactly what the government has in mind.”
Mr Howard’s second concern was about Mr Blair’s announcement that anyone participating in terrorism or having anything to do with it will automatically be refused asylum.
“I would be interested to know whether you believe such a policy, which I support, is compatible with the 1951 Geneva Convention,” the Tory leader said, adding that he believes the convention is “outdated” and would support withdrawal from it.
Thirdly, Mr Howard said the planned consultation on setting a maximum time limit for all future extradition cases involving terrorism is slightly missing the point. More emphasis should be placed on how to tackle the difficulties arising from the attitude of the courts.
“As I said on the radio this morning, we are all in this together. I am keen to ensure that all these issues are properly considered, consulted on and thought through so that we can achieve consensus wherever possible on the best way to tackle the terrorist threat facing Britain,” he concluded.
