JOHN REDWOOD ON TERRORISM
Posted by John Redwood, MP for Wokingham, at 13:46, Thu 12 October 2006:
The terrorism against transatlantic airlines has worried many people, and disrupted Heathrow and the other leading airports. It is most important that we handle these matters carefully, to keep people as safe as possible whilst not disrupting business and people’s holidays unduly.
The government was right to want to tighten security for people flying out of the UK as they had grounds to fear an imminent attack. I see nothing wrong in such circumstances with both asking people to pack most of the items they wish to take with them in hold luggage, and limiting the number of items in the cabin to a few which can be rapidly recognised by ground staff as safe to carry on. If it is now possible to make a bomb out of innocuous looking fluids, then it is right to ban carrying liquids onto a plane. The problem on the first day after the change was the government’s failure to communicate simply and clearly to all people travelling to an airport to catch a flight that they had to repack before joining the queue at the terminal, and why they should do that for their own safety.
I also have no objection to everyone being searched by hand as well during a period of heightened worry, as we learn there are things that might not show up in the metal detectors that could nonetheless be lethal. The problem again was that the government did not seem to give the airlines and airports sufficient warning that this might be a possibility, so when the demand came there were insufficient staff available to carry out the checking expeditiously. It should be possible to get people through a manual check relatively quickly, if we greatly expand the number of checkers. That may also require partitioning off some extra space in the terminals for the searches, and rigging up temporary lines or files to make sure everyone goes through the relevant check. If there is a danger of this becoming a permanent requirement the airports should be told so they can consider investing in superior scanners to check electronically for proscribed items and substances.-
Why does all this matter? It matters because the government constantly tells us we need to keep life as normal as possible to show the terrorists they are not winning. I agree. Unfortunately on the first day of the crisis it looked anything but normal, with endless delays and cancellations. It’s not as if this kind of alert was unexpected. It was no bolt from the blue. The Home Secretary has been telling us ever since he took office that we face a grave and growing threat. The Prime Minister has made speeches on how he sees the menace of terrorism. So why then did the government look so unprepared, so unable to keep the world’s busiest international airport Heathrow normal? It showed a lack of concern for the detail, and a lack of planning on how to handle tightened security. Heathrow is a crucial national asset, and the business through Heathrow is of national importance. We cannot afford to cancel or delay too much of it.
It is most important now that the authorities can produce the evidence they need to prosecute their case against those they say planned such outrages. We are told that intelligence is different from evidence. The theory goes that the authorities need to act on intelligence, reveal their hand, arrest people and then try to find the evidence from searching premises and cross examining individuals. The best approach is to use the intelligence to put suspects under surveillance without arresting them or arousing their suspicions. That is an easier way of collecting evidence or ruling people out. If the authorities feel an attack is so near they need to arrest people, they presumably have very strong indicators. Let’s hope these lead quickly to the further evidence they need to produce a case in court, as a result of searching premises, taking computers, checking phone logs and bank accounts and all the other obvious sources of proof of terrorist plotting.
It is important that we remember we are defending democracy and the rule of law, as well as protecting the public. It is never easy for a free society to defend itself against violent criminals who want to disrupt and destroy, but it is most important that a free society proceeds against all as innocent until proven guilty, and lets the evidence speak in court so that justice can be done. The state has many powers now enabling it to eavesdrop, follow, check and pursue possible criminals. Parliament gave those powers to the government so that they could protect us, and so they did have evidence when it comes to trials.
Commenting on this message is now disabled.