Former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve leaves No.10 Downing Street earlier this year. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Dominic Grieve warns Cameron that anti-terrorism plan would breach UK law

Former Tory attorney general says proposal to prevent British terror suspects from returning home would "offend basic principles of our own common law". 

After several days of coalition negotiations, David Cameron has just delivered his Commons statement on how the government plans to fill what he described as "the gaps" in Britain's anti-terrorism armoury. As expected, he announced that the police would given the "temporary power" to seize passports at the border (currently they can only be removed by the Home Office). But he also went further and promised to explore a new "targeted, discretionary power" to prevent British terrorist suspects from returning to the UK and to reintroduce "relocation powers", which the government earlier abolished. 

In response, in a largely supportive reply, Ed Miliband criticised Cameron for "the mistake" of scrapping Control Orders in 2011, which allowed the police to relocate suspects. It is worth noting, however, that even in their tougher form, the government's TPIMs (Terrorism Investigation and Prevention Measures) remain less draconian than the measures they replaced.  

But the most notable moment came when former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve, who was sacked in the recent cabinet reshuffle, warned that Cameron's plan to prevent British nationals from returning would breach both international law and UK law. He said: 

I do share concerns that have been expressed that the suggestion British nationals, however horribly they may be alleged to have behaved, should be prevented from returning to this country. Not only does it offend principles of international law, it would actually offend basic principles of our own common law as well.

He added: "The best course is to bring these individuals to justice". In response, while agreeing that it was best to prosecute people where possible, Cameron insisted that the most important thing was to address the "gaps" in the government's powers. While earlier promising cross-party talks on the issue, he offered no indication of how he would overcome Grieve's objection. 

After his forced departure, owing to his strong support for the European Convention on Human Rights, the former attorney general is emerging as a fierce critic of Cameron's approach. He recently warned that allowing parliament to overrule the ECHR would be "not dissimilar from Putin using the Duma to ratify his annexation of the Crimea". With Cameron likely to make human rights reform one of the centrepieces of the Tory conference, Grieve will be a useful ally for Labour and the Lib Dems. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Tory Brexiter Daniel Hannan: Leave campaign never promised "radical decline" in immigration

The voters might not agree...

BBC Newsnight on Twitter

It was the Leave campaign's pledge to reduce EU immigration that won it the referendum. But Daniel Hannan struck a rather different tone on last night's Newsnight. "It means free movement of labour," the Conservative MEP said of the post-Brexit model he envisaged. An exasperated Evan Davis replied: “I’m sorry we’ve just been through three months of agony on the issue of immigration. The public have been led to believe that what they have voted for is an end to free movement." 

Hannan protested that EU migrants would lose "legal entitlements to live in other countries, to vote in other countries and to claim welfare and to have the same university tuition". But Davis wasn't backing down. "Why didn't you say this in the campaign? Why didn't you say in the campaign that you were wanting a scheme where we have free movement of labour? Come on, that's completely at odds with what the public think they have just voted for." 

Hannan concluded: "We never said there was going to be some radical decline ... we want a measure of control". Your Mole suspects many voters assumed otherwise. If immigration is barely changed, Hannan and others will soon be burned by the very fires they stoked. 

I'm a mole, innit.