The opposition parties have been carefully spinning the story, informing us that their 'principled' resistance has forced major concessions from the Blair government. Conservative party leader Michael Howard claimed defeat, saying:
“The Prime Minister has been forced to announce a sunset clause in all but name, he just couldn’t quite bring himself to admit it.”
I contend that the sunset clause was always an integral part of the government's overall strategy, and was always intended to provide the basis for compromise and capitulation by the oppositon parties' and the House of Lord's. It enables the bill to be 'tweaked' and amended on a regular basis, and allows the government to gauge public and media reaction to these new measures.
The British public are being conditioned to accept control orders, which incorporate practices such as house arrest, electronic tagging, and bans on internet and telephone use into the body of British law. Further provisions will allow for the use of private security companies to police 'suspects' and to carry out constant 24 hour surveillance on 'potential terrorists'. The right to a jury trial is also coming under threat, as many of the subjects of these control orders may never be brought to court.
We are being told that the fact that the law is being passed, and that it will be subject to a yearly review is a great victory. The 'opposition' (if they even deserve to be referred to as such), has based its unprincipled stand against the bills passage, on the introduction of a sunset clause that allows the government to reintroduce the more unpopular elements of the legislation at regular intervals.
The mass of ordinary people are not fully aware of what has been removed, and believe that these new judicial and police powers are to be used only against 'suspected terrorists'. However the fact remains that new powers are now available to the state, that allow fundamental freedoms enjoyed by the British people for the last 700 years to be removed at the discretion of the government.
