Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-122)
MR ROGER
SMITH, DR
ERIC METCALFE,
MS VICKI
CHAPMAN, MS
ALEXANDRA MARKS,
MS SHAMI
CHAKRABARTI AND
MR GARETH
CROSSMAN
11 OCTOBER 2005
Q120 Steve McCabe: I just want to
ask how big a police state with how many additional police officers
and intelligence agents do you think we need to have before organisations
like yourselves will be satisfied that our human rights have been
protected from potential terrorist threats and can you give me
any idea how much it is going to cost?
Dr Metcalfe: I am afraid I cannot
give you a cost estimate, but I can state with some confidence
that I would be far happier with a large police force and strong—
Q121 Steve McCabe: Yes, maybe, but
I just want to know how big? Do you want a policeman on every
corner, for every household?
Dr Metcalfe: Well, let's just
say a large police force with strong safeguards on human rights
would be better than a small police force with no human rights
safeguards.
Mr Smith: I think the truth is
that the police have worked for a long time with what they have
got at the moment and the case really to extend this to three
months is not really made. The police produced the example that
on the 50th computer there was the damning, smoking gun, if I
can use that sort of mixed metaphor, but what about where you
go through the 50 computers and there is not a smoking gun and
you move inexorably to a situation where any one of the police
officers, whatever their number, just says, "Round up the
usual suspects". That is not the kind of state we want and,
as sure as eggs is eggs, if what we want to do is to stop there
being another outrage like 7 July and to detach people of violence
from their surroundings, then to go down this way where you can
pick up people on virtually no evidence, hold them incommunicado
for up to three months and then sling them back, which is what
will tend to happen because they will not get the evidence and
we have had the statistics on this and we know that there 20-odd
prosecutions on 750 arrests, the dangers of enacting this proposal
are enormous and they are irrespective of how many police officers
we have.
Q122 Mr Winnick: Dr Metcalfe, you
make the comparison about the right to life between those who
were destroyed in the mass murder of 7 July and road accidents.
I do not, and presumably nor do my colleagues, see any possible
comparison. I am just wondering if you or Mr Smith, though perhaps
it is not Mr Smith's own views, but I wonder if you, Dr Metcalfe,
would like to explain that to the close relatives of those who
were murdered or, for example, the woman who had both legs amputated
above the knee and tell them that there is a comparison between
what happened on 7 July and what happens in a road accident.
Dr Metcalfe: Let me be clear,
that those who have suffered the loss of their family and friends
and relatives on 7 July have my greatest sympathy and I think
it is absolutely right that the Government should take the terrorist
threat to the United Kingdom very seriously. What I would say
to those who were victims or relatives of victims would be, "Yes,
the Government is right to take action, but we are concerned that
what the Government is doing is an over-reaction and your friends
and loved ones lived in a society in which they enjoyed freedom
of speech, freedom of expression and so on and it is very important
for us to continue to safeguard the values under which they lived
and not to give way to legislative panic, not to give way to hasty
measures which actually have the effect of undermining everyone's
freedoms". I would say that in relation to the comparison
I made between victims of terrorism and road deaths, yes, it is
a horrible way to die, but I am pretty sure it is a horrible way
to die in a car crash as well and we do not want the Government
to be focusing a disproportionate amount of legislative resources
and using this as a justification simply by reference to the right
to life. If you are going to treat every life equally, then you
have to treat every threat to life equally.
Mr Smith: I think the general
point is that the response must be proportionate, targeted, effective
and precise.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
It has been a very useful session and I hope that the transcripts
will help to inform the debate which will take place when the
legislation is introduced in the House of Commons. Thank you very
much indeed.
|
