ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS

Intro: Theresa May has called for a review of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy but she should be wary of pushing through legislation for the sake of being seen to act.

Amid the reaction to the horrific events over the past few weeks in London and Manchester, it has become apparent that there is no simple answer over how best to respond to the serious terrorist threat the UK is facing.

There have been calls for the general election on Thursday to be postponed, which mercifully have not gained much traction. There was also immediate criticism of MI5 and our intelligence agencies for failing to detect the hiring of a van and the possession of widely-available knives by those who have wreaked havoc on our streets.

As public order is restored and the dust settles, some have reverted to a less fevered analysis by revisiting anti-terrorism measures. New legislation might emerge in dealing with the insidious threat we now face. We have, of course, been here before, with the stand-out example being Tony Blair’s response to the London bombings of 2005. The then prime minister swiftly drew up several new measures to help thwart further attacks, but it barely required the benefit of hindsight to reach the conclusion that most of those measures could be described as a knee-jerk reaction. Some of the proposals were enacted into law, others were never heard of again. Mr Blair’s strategy was largely driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something when strong leadership should have been the imperative and priority. Legislation that is rushed, however, is hardly ever appropriate or even practical.

Theresa May’s verdict following the most recent attacks in London that ‘enough is enough’ is an uncomfortable conclusion, but her call for a review of counter-terrorism strategy is correct. We know to our cost that the measures put in place after 2005, and since then, have given the police extensive new powers but have not been able to stop the three terrorist attacks on the UK in 2017.

The Government should now pause before re-writing the statute book, and act only after thorough consultation on what is required, and what is possible. The time that any new laws or amendments to current legislation would take by using such an approach should not be seen as a frustrating delay, because it must be recognised that the threat we face is changing. There is also not an off-the-shelf strategy to counter it. Whatever measures are introduced must be workable and effective, otherwise they become a waste of time and vital resource.

We have to be sure, too, that existing statutory provisions are being used properly – for example, there have been numerous claims after recent attacks that the authorities were alerted previously to the behaviour of those involved.

At a time when the public is being asked to be increasingly vigilant, and to report any suspicious activity, we have to be confident that this kind of intelligence is being fully utilised. It’s vitally important that it is.