Security and human rights dominate final day before UK election
2 HOURS AGO by: James Blitz in London
Security dominated the final day of campaigning ahead of Britain’s general election on Thursday, with opposition parties attacking Theresa May for suggesting that human rights laws could be changed to give police greater powers to tackle suspected terrorists.
In an eleventh-hour proposal following the London Bridge attacks, the prime minister said she was prepared to impose longer sentences on convicted terrorists, deport foreign suspects more easily and to increase controls on extremists where there is not enough evidence to prosecute them.
In response, Labour said the UK would not defeat terrorism “by ripping up basic rights”. Keir Starmer, Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary and a former director of public prosecutions, told the BBC there was “no incompatibility between protecting human rights and taking effective action against terrorists”.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat and former deputy prime minister, described Mrs May’s comments as a “crass last-minute attempt to divert attention from the much more difficult questions around our antiterrorism policy to appeal to the splenetic prejudices of the rightwing tabloids”.
Mr Clegg added, in an interview with the BBC’s Today programme, that there was “absolutely no shred of evidence that human rights laws are the reasons why these murderous acts happened in Manchester and London”.
UK election: what you need to know
Play video
Mrs May has come under pressure in the aftermath of the London Bridge attack because of concerns over cuts in police numbers and failures in intelligence. Two of the three attackers in Saturday’s incident were either known to UK intelligence as extremists or put on Islamist watch lists.
Initially, Mrs May attempted to steer the campaign back to Brexit and leadership, issues where her campaign believes she has an advantage over Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. But the serial revelations of intelligence failures has forced Mrs May to change tack, and on Monday morning she again sought to move the debate on to human rights issues
“We need to ensure it’s easier for the authorities to deport foreign terrorist suspects,” she told LBC radio. “We also need to look to do more to restrict the freedom and movements of terror suspects, where there’s evidence that we know they intend to do us harm.”
How the UK election became a political dogfight
Election Analyst: what the polls really mean
Election Outsider: a deeper perspective on the campaign
Poll tracker: see how the parties are faring
Mrs May added: “If human rights laws stop us from doing that, I think then we will change those laws.”
Mrs May has not yet spelt out precisely what kind of measures she is looking at. Security experts believe she could be considering strengthening terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpims). These include requiring suspected extremists to wear electronic tagging, report regularly to the police and face “tightly defined exclusion from particular places and the prevention of travel overseas”.
A complete return to the control orders that were implemented by the Labour government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and scrapped in 2010 is thought unlikely. Control orders were much more restrictive — suspects could be relocated to a town far from their home, face 16-hour curfews and be banned from meeting named individuals and using mobile phones and the internet.
Related article
How the UK election became a political dogfight
The key moments of the six-week campaign
In an interview with the Sun newspaper, Mrs May also suggested increasing the period for which terror suspects can be held without trial, from the current level of 14 days — an issue that proved highly controversial for the Blair government.
Mrs May said: “When we reduced it to 14 days, we actually allowed for legislation to enable it to be at 28 days. We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what [the police and intelligence services] think is necessary for us to do.”
The Conservative manifesto committed the party to remaining in the European Convention on Human Rights for the whole of the next parliament, and some Labour officials sought to portray the move as a U-turn.
Conservative sources have told the BBC that they would not withdraw from the ECHR but would seek temporary opt-outs called “derogations” from certain aspects.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2017. All rights reserved. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Share on Twitter (opens new window)
Share on Facebook (opens new window)
Share on Whatsapp (opens new window)
Email52 Save
Read latest
How the UK election became a political dogfight
UPDATED 41 MINUTES AGO
Latest on UK general election
Add to myFT
UK general election
How the UK election became a political dogfight
The key moments of the six-week campaign
UPDATED 41 MINUTES AGO
Pound Sterling
Pound holds ground above $1.29 on eve of UK poll
Traders resist temptation to call election following volatility in opinion polls
NEW AN HOUR AGO
UK general election
Diane Abbott replaced in Labour team on election eve
Gaffe-prone shadow home secretary sidelined on health grounds one day before UK poll
2 HOURS AGO
Special Reports
Special Report
Turkey ‘aims to build land bridge’ to the Arab world
Turkish exports to Saudia Arabia and the UAE have soared in recent years
Special Report
Sometimes the best thing a founder can do is sell out
Research shows more than half of entrepreneurs go on to start another business
Latest in UK Politics & Policy
Added
Brexit Briefing Tony Barber
EU comes together over Brexit
Decision makers are focusing on how to make the bloc a stronger, more efficient union
NEW AN HOUR AGO
UK terrorism
What tech companies share with police to fight terror
Apple rejects criticism from Theresa May and says it is co-operating with UK authorities
3 HOURS AGO
fastFT
Diane Abbott temporarily stands aside as shadow home secretary
Follow the topics mentioned in this article
Terrorism Add to myFT
Nick Clegg Add to myFT
Theresa May Add to myFT
Keir Starmer Add to myFT
Human rights Add to myFT
Follow the authors of this article
James Blitz Add to myFT
Take a tour of myFT
COMMENTS (56)
Sign in
By submitting this comment I confirm that I have read and agreed to the FT Terms and Conditions. Please also see our commenting guidelines.
Newest | Oldest | Most recommended
Radha 32 minutes ago
The UK police chief asked Theresa May how she slept at night knowing that a terror attack was more likely because of police cuts (this was 2011) - how can any conservative voter, vote for this woman in good conscience if the only metric to gauge her performance is her record as Home Secretary - vote tactically - a hung parliament is the most patriotic result for this country if it puts an adult in charge of the conservative party. I say this as a David Cameron voter.
3RecommendReply
Paul Munton’s Potimarron 9 minutes ago
@Radha
Yes agreed vote tactically. If you want to do this and you need to know who to vote for the there is a website that can tell you. You simply put in your constituency and it tells you what the appropriate tactical vote is. It can be found at: bestforbritain.org/
RecommendReply
Popular 45 minutes ago
Just how low will Theresa May stoop to get votes?
2RecommendReply
Custodia Legis 42 minutes ago
@Popular She is not stooping as you suggest. She knows that a solution has to be fond for the new type of attacks. They simply can’t continue. She is entitled to derogate from the Convention, as is any other country that needs to. That doesn’t mean leaving the ECHR.
2RecommendReply
Paul Munton’s Potimarron 37 minutes ago
@Custodia Legis @Popular
No, it just means saying, like a primary school teacher to a noisy class “enough is enough!”. Pathetic if it was not so tragic for us all.
RecommendReply
Custodia Legis 33 minutes ago
@Paul Munton’s Potimarron @Custodia Legis @Popular What is pathetic? I can’t see anything pathetic with her comments. She must take action to stop those people who are planning random attacks by using every day tools such as vehicles and kitchen knives. With all the money and will in the world, no intelligence service would be able to stop these type of attacks entirely. I see determination in her comments, and I think she is right. I’d like to feel safe, wouldn’t you?
1RecommendReply
2 replies
Paul Munton’s Potimarron 47 minutes ago
Her response the Manchester and London terror attacks has been a very poor performance by May. She has failed to apply the government’s long standing anti-terrorist strategy which emphases the maintenance of the normal and the avoidance of short term measures in response to atrocities which have long term negative effects against the fight on terrorists.* She should instead prepare us for worse to come as ISIS is defeated and as their sick supporters flail around in desperation acting against soft targets in the West. She should be inspiring us instead to be STRONG AND STABLE in the face of an enemy.
Here is a synopsis of the UK anti- terrorism strategy by Sir David Omand which gives some idea of the complexity of the UK approach and why restricting human rights may not be a good idea at this time:
*An effective counter-terrorist effort needs coherence of effort among a wide variety of public- and private-sector bodies, and this is best achieved by adopting a conscious process of strategic planning. UK counter-terrorism strategy rests on four campaigns of prevention, pursuit, protection and preparation. This approach needs to be transferred to the international arena to generate a stronger sense of strategic direction in countering al-Qaeda and its associated groups and ideology, while allowing nations to participate in countering terrorism in ways appropriate to their constitutions and circumstances, with results that will be mutually reinforcing. Such strategic orientation will help guard against pressure for short-term measures likely to prove counter-productive in the long term, and improve the effectiveness of public communication to counter the terrorists’ own narrative.
Source: Omand, David 2005, Global Politics and Strategy in Survival, 47. Issue 4.
2RecommendReply
Custodia Legis 45 minutes ago
@Paul Munton’s Potimarron That is an old report. Attacks have changed since 2005. A different approach is needed.
1RecommendReply
Paul Munton’s Potimarron 39 minutes ago
@Custodia Legis @Paul Munton’s Potimarron
Your comment is misleading. We had bomb attacks in 2005 just as we have had in 2017. Although there has been an increase in low tech attacks on soft targets these are best dealt with by information from the faith communities from which potential terrorists come. That will be made more difficult if the decline in human rights for us all alienates these communities and makes life more difficult for them.
Overall the UK Anti-terrorism strategy was carefully thought through and is worth maintaining. The truth is that Mrs May is panicking in the face of the inevitable rise in terrorist incidents as ISIS is destroyed. We need better leadership at this time, not a change of strategy.
2RecommendReply
Custodia Legis 36 minutes ago
@Paul Munton’s Potimarron @Custodia Legis I know we did. You have noticed that the attacks have changed, I am sure. The new type of attacks are perpetrated by either lone wolves or small groups using every day tools such as vans, cars and kitchen knives. My comment is not misleading. It reflects current reality not the reality of 2005 where attacks were prepared by terrorist groups. Now they are planned in 5 minutes and executed.
RecommendReply
TheSadTruth 52 minutes ago
Loving Clegg’s defence of terrorists’ rights this am. Should be worth another 10-15 seats for Conservatives. Can’t believe more than 1 in 20 normal people agrees with him.
2RecommendReply
Jedediah 1 minute ago
@TheSadTruth What he said is that human rights laws aren’t getting in the way of defending ourselves from terrorists. Clumsy electioneering moves from TM will just breed more terrorists.
RecommendReply
Walbrook 58 minutes ago
You can just smell the desperation!
3RecommendReply
TheSadTruth 1 minute ago
@Walbrook - you mean responding to what the vast majority of the public want? i.e. to be kept safe from people roaming our streets trying to kill us?
RecommendReply
cUk 1 hour ago
ok, scrap human rights laws, but against the others not against me …
3RecommendReply
Custodia Legis 1 hour ago
TM didn’t say she will scrap HR laws. She said that she would if she had to in order to protect us all from terrorist attacks. She can derogate from the ECHR if she needs to. Derogations are legitimate as long as they are proportionate. There’s a lot of talk about control orders. They had to be crapped because the ECtHR found them incompatible with the Convention. However, they really worked and prevented attacks such as the ones we had.
4RecommendReply
kevtheclaret 1 hour ago
@Custodia Legis It’s shocking cynicism, This is the only thing May has brought forward to support her time as the Home secretary, and in typical form, she’s blaming everything and anybody to abdicate responsibility for her poor performance.
4RecommendReply
Custodia Legis 1 hour ago
@kevtheclaret @Custodia Legis I am not sure what happened to my message. No it is not cynicism. The government had to abolish control orders because they were declared incompatible with the ECHR in a case, if I remember correctly, it was JJ and others v Secretary of State for the HO Dept. They actually worked, and they would have prevented an attack like the ones we had recently. Their replacement is not so efficient. It is not to do with cynicism but with what was determined by the court.
2RecommendReply
NC91 46 minutes ago
@Custodia Legis @kevtheclaret Actually, strictly speaking control orders as a whole were not really declared incompatible - the coalition abolished them (no doubt for political reasons). However, specific orders such as those in JJ, E and MB and AF (all heard on the same day) were declared to amount to a deprivation of liberty .