Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
9 NOVEMBER 2004
MR BEN
WARD, MR
LES LEVIDOW,
MR GERRY
GABLE AND
MR PAUL
DONOVAN
Q60 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: You also suggest
that the police have deliberately tipped off the media about impending
arrests. You go on to talk about a specific event there. How serious
do you think this problem is?
Mr Donovan: There was a period
of a month when there were two sets of arrests, one in the north,
one in the south and other related events. I think there were
signs that somebody had tipped off the press because they did
not all just turn up out of the blue, somebody must have tipped
them off. Some of the information I got from the article in Press
Gazette suggested that there were tip-offs. Over that period
there did seem to be an increase in the number of events, but
it does seem to have died down since. The hiatus of that process
was the Manchester arrests in April, where the people were arrested
and tied in with the Manchester United football match because
they had tickets. They were then released later. Based on the
journalists I spoke to, there were also people on the policing
side that probably thought that, with those arrests all coming
together and the Manchester one in particular, that could be a
scare too many and that if something serious did come along the
journalists would not believe them the next time. There has been
a definite improvement since that time.
Q61 Mrs Curtis-Thomas: So not a serious
problem there?
Mr Donovan: Not now, no.
Q62 Mr Singh: Mr Levidow, I would like
to test an idea with you. You made a statement saying that the
anti-terror laws had been applied in such a way that they are
racist in themselves. If there is a threat to this country from
a major terrorist group which happened to be Sikh, Buddhist or
Hindu, would you not expect there to be an over-preponderance
of people from that background who had been stopped and searched
or surveyed to have had some action taken against them by the
police? Would you not expect that as a natural consequence? If
a Buddhist group carried out a terrorist outrage, what would the
police be doing arresting Muslims?
Mr Levidow: The problem is the
"if".
Q63 Mr Singh: The problem is that you
made an assertion that the application of the terror laws is racist.
I do not know if you hinted that they were racist intrinsically
but their application certainly was so. What I am saying is that
if there was a terror organisation threatening large scale terror
in this country from a Sikh group, would you not expect a greater
degree of surveillance on that community, whether it is fair or
not, rather than on Buddhists who had not made a threat?
Mr Levidow: Your question starts
from an assumption that there is a terrorist threat from perhaps
Muslim groups and this explains why the anti-terror laws would
be directed especially at Muslims. I would turn the question upside
down: after all this time where is the evidence in court of any
plans for violent attacks on the public in this country? I have
not seen any. The lawyers acting for the defendants have not seen
any. Compare that to all the so-called anti-terror measures which
are directed not only against Muslims, they were directed against
Kurds and the political persecution of Kurds, who have not carried
out terrorist attacks in other parts of the world and, in particular,
stop and search directed basically at all people with dark skins.
Q64 Mr Singh: I think the assumption
is made quite reasonably by governments not just in this country
but in the USA, the rest of Europe, Pakistan, India, wherever
you go, Saudi Arabia, because of al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda appears to
be a major terrorist organisation with the ability to strike in
major ways all over the globe. That is where that assumption comes
from. What I am saying is that if that happened to a Buddhist
group, would you not expect the police in this country at least
to take intelligence gathering from that community more than another
community?
Mr Levidow: The issue here is
not intelligence. The special anti-terror laws that were enacted
in 2000-01 were not needed for intelligence gathering. Those laws
have been used for general or racist harassment and for political
persecution or for intimidating Kurds in particular to become
police informers—that is to inform on political activities
in opposition to the Government of Turkey and so on.[6]
The question itself has the dubious assumption that the laws are
directed against some real threat to the public here which thereby
explains the use of the laws.
Q65 Mr Singh: I am going to move on.
Are the anti-terror laws in Israel racist because they are applied
against Palestinians?
Mr Levidow: Again, if you look
at how those laws are applied, for locking up a large proportion
of the adult male population to justify the expropriation of Palestinian
land and so on, then that cannot be explained by the need to protect
people from physical violence unless you assume that basically
the whole Palestinian population and their resistance to occupation
is a terrorist threat, which is the assumption behind those laws.
Q66 Mr Singh: At least you are consistent!
Apart from Mr Gable, I think you are all critical of the new stop
and search powers under the Terrorism Act. What do you think would
be a reasonable response if the Government genuinely felt that
there was a terrorist threat? What would we expect it to do if
it did not introduce powers like these?
Mr Levidow: I repeat what we said
before. These laws introduce powers which are not necessary in
order to detect and prevent organised violence, if that is what
you mean by terrorism. Rather, they were introduced, firstly,
with the Terrorism Act 2000, to expand the definition of terrorism
to include a wide range of political activities and, secondly,
to apply those definitions to organisations resisting oppression
in other countries, and, thirdly, to criminalise any association
by people in this country with people who are associated with
those organisations abroad.[7]
In other words, they had a political agenda in defence of alliances
between the British government and oppressive regimes abroad.[8]
This is why those laws were enacted. They were not needed to protect
the public from violence in this country. The implementation of
the laws shows a political agenda across all the powers that had
been used.
Q67 Mr Singh: Mr Ward, do you share that
view or do you think there are reasonable assumptions that the
Government has had and the terror laws are justified?
Mr Ward: I do not doubt that the
Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act was introduced in good faith.
The concern of my organisation is that the measures are impermissible
on the grounds of international human rights law and that the
measures actually undermine the effectiveness of Britain's overall
counter-terrorism policy, and I think the latter point is one
that is made far more eloquently by the Newton Committee than
I can make it, but that is clearly a concern. In relation to the
issue of stop and search, I would commend to you the recent general
recommendation of the UN Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination which deals in fact with discrimination
against non-citizens but it has a specific recommendation in relation
to the use of counter-terrorism measures. What it says is, ".
. . ensure any measures taken in the fight against terrorism do
not discriminate in purpose or effect on the grounds of race,
colour, descent or national or ethnic origin and that non-citizens
are not subjected to racial or ethnic profiling or stereotyping".
I think the point about racial and ethnic profiling and stereotyping
is very important because it goes very much to the issue that
you were just touching upon in relation to stop and search. Even
if it were not problematic from the point of view of international
human rights law and my submission is that the general recommendation
shows that it is, we are still left with the point of what impact
does it have to apply a policy that sends a message to a particular
community that that entire community are regarded under suspicion
by the state. Whatever benefit may accrue from stopping everyone
who shares the characteristics of a certain community from whom
the terrorist threat may emanate in some part has to be set against
the consequences of the impact on that community and indeed on
the willingness of that community to pick up the telephone and
call the police if they are aware of something suspicious or in
relation to a plot to carry out acts of terrorism.
Q68 Mr Singh: I think the Asian community
is something like two million in the UK. Last year there were
just below 3,000 stop and searches of the Asian community. Are
you saying that that small percentage has spread a lot of disquiet
amongst the Asian community?
Mr Ward: It seems to me, Mr Singh,
that the question is on what basis are those decisions being made.
If the decisions are being made on the basis of a particular piece
of evidence about the appearance or other characteristic of an
individual who is wanted for questioning for a specific incident
on the basis of intelligence received and if that can be shown
to be the case then it is not stop and search, it is actually
detaining someone who is wanted for questioning or looking for
someone who is wanted for questioning. What is troubling to me
and was plainly troubling to the UN Commission for the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination, which has highlighted stop and search
in the UK as something it specifically wants to hear from the
UK Government about in its most recent report from December 2003,
is that stop and search is being applied on the basis of a single
characteristic, which is membership of a particular community
and there I would suggest that the fact that we are talking about
hundreds and not millions does not actually legate the negative
consequences.
Q69 Mr Singh: What you are saying is
not quite true. Stop and search is not being applied on the basis
of one characteristic. The proportions might be questionable,
but last year nearly 40,500 white people were stopped and searched
and nearly 1,800 black people were stopped and searched. What
you said, that the stop and search powers are being applied on
one characteristic, is just not true.
Mr Ward: What the UN Committee
on the Elimination of Discrimination has said is that it is concerned
about a disproportionately high number of stops. One also does
not know the basis upon which the other stops were made. Presumably
the committee was concerned that the stops in relation to ethnic
and racial minorities were for particular sorts of offences that
were problematic. If all or most of the stops targeted at ethnic
minorities were for reasons of motoring offences or possession
of controlled substances—
Q70 Mr Singh: These are all within the
stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act. Let us move on
to Mr Donovan. What do you think about that? Do you think they
are unreasonable where the assumption has been made by governments
all over the world that there is a large-scale terror threat by
a large scale organisation out there which can do us terrible
damage? Are these powers unreasonable?
Mr Donovan: I think the powers
that were already here were sufficient because, do not forget,
we did have a conflict with Republican terrorists in Ireland running
over 30 years and we brought in the Prevention of Terrorism Act
for that. There is an argument as to whether that did anything
to prevent terrorism. Let us assume for this argument that that
was there to counter terrorism, surely that was adequate and there
were enough powers there. That was extended in 2000 before the
number of atrocities you mentioned came into being, but I would
have said there was enough power there already. I wonder about
some of the thinking behind bringing in powers. Are they being
brought in because they are effective in stopping terrorism or
are they being brought in because Government has got to give the
impression it is doing something because of that big threat?
Q71 Chairman: Section 44 of the Terrorism
Act largely re-enacted the previous provisions of the Prevention
of Terrorism Act, did it not? Can you remind us what the change
was, if any, between what was in the Prevention of Terrorism Act
and section 44 of the 2000 Act?
Mr Donovan: The stop and search
powers.
Q72 Chairman: The stop and search powers
were largely in the Prevention of Terrorism Act already, were
they not?
Mr Donovan: Yes.
Q73 Chairman: Was there actually any
significant change between what was in section 44 of the Terrorism
Act passed after 9/11 and what had previously existed?
Mr Donovan: I am not sure on the
stop and search element.
Q74 Chairman: So it may be there was
not any significant difference at all between the pre-existing
legislation used for Republican terrorism other than an independent
commissioner was brought in to oversee it, Lord Carlile.
Mr Donovan: Was the point not
that we needed new powers?
Q75 Chairman: I just wanted to establish
factually for the Committee whether there was a significant change
on stop and search in the new Terrorism Act or not because this
is quite important as to whether new powers are introduced in
the area of stop and search or whether they existed beforehand.
We can clarify that as a Committee.
Mr Levidow: As we pointed out
in our cover letter, those powers were challenged through a test
case. It happened to be the arms fair where protesters were subjected
to stop and search and they challenged this on the basis that
the police had no specific reason to stop specific individuals.[9]
The police just announced, "We have powers to stop anyone
we like in this area". This was challenged in court and the
court decided that the police did not need any specific reason
to stop and search any person. This interpretation of the law
stands and that is extremely serious. It means the police can
arbitrarily stop and search anyone they like for no specific reason
and this cannot be challenged afterwards through any legal procedure.
Chairman: I was merely trying to elucidate
whether this is something new that entered the system after 9/11
or was it there before.
Q76 Mr Singh: Mr Gable, you gave support
to the stop and search powers in fighting terrorism. I still want
to challenge this theory of racism that Mr Levidow spoke of but
in the context that different police forces are using these powers
in a different way. If it was completely a racial thing you would
expect them all to be using them equally. For example, in west
Yorkshire in 2002 two Asian people were stopped under this power,
in Nottinghamshire nobody in was stopped in 2001 and 2002, in
south Yorkshire nobody was stopped, and yet in Northumbria, where
you probably would not expect many to be stopped and searched
at all, there were 35 stopped. There is a huge difference between
no stop and searches at all and you have got plenty of those,
which suggests to me there is no state conspiracy here to stop
and search people on racial lines, but why do you think there
is this disparity?
Mr Gable: There is a huge amount
of unhappiness amongst intelligent police management and leadership
over the question of stop and search. You can see what has happened
in the last few years. They look at the Lawrence Inquiry and they
say we could have fulfilled that obligation and then they have
thought it does not quite work, so the Home Secretary and successive
Home Secretaries tweak it and it is still not resolved. Your colleague
said something about recording on the basis of race and faith.
The system that they have developed over the last couple of years
does include ethnic backgrounds, but this form is getting longer
and longer and longer. You have to imagine being a police officer
on a rainy night stopping somebody who does not particularly want
to be stopped and trying to fill in one of these forms. Somebody
said something about people's entitlement to have a copy, but
they have got that entitlement.
Q77 Mr Singh: I am sorry, it was north
Yorkshire. Would you agree that although these laws could be applied
with racial bias, they can also be applied without racial bias
with intelligent policing?
Mr Gable: Yes. I think the whole
thing comes down to this question of management. There was a pilot
scheme in London about three or four years ago where they applied
the same criteria to stops in seven boroughs in London. A friend
of mine happened to be the sergeant dealing with that in one police
borough. They got a result of 26 hits on the stops they did and
the others were getting five and six, it was all over the place
and it was also very racist as well, but because those people
had been briefed properly he came back with a very high figure
of 26 charges arising out of it. It really is intelligent management,
trying to convey that to the foot soldiers, but it is open to
abuse. A police commander said to me a few months ago, "It's
the Monday morning law, isn't it? You get up on Monday morning,
you put your uniform on, you kick the cat and you've had a row
with your Mrs over breakfast, and you go out and you want to lash
out. What can you do? You can stop and search somebody".
It is human nature.
Q78 David Winnick: Mr Donovan, you said
in reply to my colleague Mr Singh that the Government may wish
to give the impression that they are acting on the terrorist threat.
Can we get it quite clear as far as you are concerned and your
evidence to us, do you accept there is a terrorist threat to the
United Kingdom?
Mr Donovan: Yes.
Q79 David Winnick: Because of what you
said arising from that question from Mr Singh, I must say—and
you will forgive me for saying so—that in your evidence
to us it does not seem to come out quite clearly that there is
an acute terrorist threat to the people who live in Britain. Nevertheless,
you accept that the Government is right to take whatever action
it takes or does not take and to recognise there is a terrorist
threat to Britain?
Mr Donovan: Yes.
6 Note by witness: In addition, activists campaigning
for Kurdish language rights were prosecuted for supposedly supporting
a banned organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. This case
illustrates the overtly political use of the legislation. See
the CAMPACC submission to the Privy Council review, section 3
on "Broadening the definition of terrorism", and Appendix
III on "UK persecution of Kurds'. Back
7
Note by witness: The Terrorism Act 2000 fundamentally redefined
terrorism to include simply "the threat" of "serious
damage to property", in ways "designed to influence
the Government" for a "political cause". The 2000
and 2001 legislation authorises severe powers on mere suspicion
that someone may be associated with such broadly defined "terrorism". Back
8
Note by witness: For example, under the Terrorism Act 2000
the UK Government classified a Turkish-language magazine (legal
in Turkey) as "terrorist property" and attempted to
prosecute the distributors, thus criminalising dissent. Special
Branch officers visited numerous shopkeepers and asked them to
testify against the defendants in court. See again the CAMPACC
submission to the Privy Council review, Appendix IX on the "Vatan
trial". Back
9
Note by witness: This happened at the DSEI arms fair in
the Docklands in September 2003. Likewise, in the run-up to the
attack on Iraq in early 2003, a large area around Fairford Air
Base was subjected to stop-and-search powers under "anti-terror"
legislation. Now such powers apply continuously to all of London. Back
| 
