The Terrorism Bill

The Bill was debated in Parliament in late October. Some of the provisions of this new Bill are needed. For example it will cover distribution of materials encouraging terrorism via the internet, and attendance at terrorist training camps, offences which are not specified in existing legislation. It also covers acts which are preparation for terrorist activity, and the possession of radioactive materials with the intention of using them in terrorist activities.

The most contentious part of the legislation is the extension of the period for which someone can be held without charge  At present this is limited to 14 days, but it is proposed to make this 90 days. The arguments used to justify this centre around the detailed work which the police say has to be done to build up a case. Computer data which has been encrypted could take far long than 14 days to decipher, it is argued, and the volume of evidence which may have to be scrutinised can be so great that 14 days is insufficient.

90 days is a very long period to hold anyone without charge. I was not convinced by the arguments for this change, or that there were anywhere near sufficient safeguards to ensure that people arrested on suspicion would have the ability to effectively challenge their detention. I voted against the 90 day proposal and in favour of an amendment to limit it to 28 days.

The banning of organisations is not a new power, it already exists under current legislation. I do not believe there is a problem in banning any organisation which openly advocates violence. I do have concerns about reports that some organisations which are not advocating violence may be banned because of their political views. However much I may disagree with their views, I do believe this is a dangerous road to go down, and could well be unproductive, and glamourise such groups.

Nov 2005

Home Page     |     News & Views     |     Press Archive