Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): In the latest Sunday Times Tony Blair described the government’s desire to ‘reach a consensus across the main political parties’ over new counter-terrorist proposals. But where does the common ground lie?
If the track-record of David Cameron is a guide, one issue could be the loosening of the absolute prohibition on torture currently binding on the UK. In a debate on terrorism on 19 November 2001 – only months after entering Parliament – Cameron complained to the Commons that the way in which Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was interpreted meant that "the Home Secretary cannot deport those who are potentially a danger to this country".
Here he formulated the line which he has continued to maintain to the present (now under the cloak of a new Bill of Rights). The basic proposition is that while torture is not acceptable, the initiation of a process which could end in such ill-treatment can go ahead provided UK personnel do not get their hands dirty. This can mean deporting foreign national terrorist suspects (who have been convicted of nothing here) to countries where they may be tortured. It contradicts the basic principle of human rights: that any person who falls within our jurisdiction has innate rights, such as not to be tortured or detained without charge because of their humanity. The convergence of views between Blair and Cameron over torture is a warning: consensus over constitutional change may have a dark side.
