The Clipboard: Private firms to police British terror orders

From an article¹:

Private security staff are to be used to monitor the controversial new anti-terrorist control orders in an attempt to save money, according to preparations being made to implement the policy by the Home Office.

Senior civil servants have been asked to assess the likely impact of the control orders which are being rushed through parliament. Their report discloses that private security staff are to monitor the day-to-day surveillance of the terror suspects through electronic tagging.

The Home Office says the control orders will be cheaper than the £40,000 annual cost of holding a terror suspect in a high-security prison such as Belmarsh. But to save further money "where possible the monitoring of the orders will be contracted out to private companies as per existing arrangements with companies like Securicor and Group 4"...

...Although the private security companies have a relatively good record, the use of private security staff to minimise costs will raise fresh questions about their security vetting.

Harry Fletcher, of Napo, the probation officers union, said if the government was right and "these people were amongst the most dangerous in the country, the monitoring should be the responsibility of the state and not private security companies. The information that will be available to these people will be highly sensitive.

"To have private companies in the intelligence loop could compromise that process. The people who currently monitor electronic tags are predominantly low paid with minimal training. Do we really want national security in these hands?" (link)

Blair really is turning the UK into a clone of the U.S. with authoritarian laws attacking civil liberties, mixed with privatization. Lord help us.

---

Complete text of the article, Private firms to police terror orders, by Alan Travis and Michael White

Private security staff are to be used to monitor the controversial new anti-terrorist control orders in an attempt to save money, according to preparations being made to implement the policy by the Home Office.

Senior civil servants have been asked to assess the likely impact of the control orders which are being rushed through parliament. Their report discloses that private security staff are to monitor the day-to-day surveillance of the terror suspects through electronic tagging.

The Home Office says the control orders will be cheaper than the £40,000 annual cost of holding a terror suspect in a high-security prison such as Belmarsh. But to save further money "where possible the monitoring of the orders will be contracted out to private companies as per existing arrangements with companies like Securicor and Group 4".

The disclosure of the likely involvement of private security firms comes as the home secretary, Charles Clarke, faces a make or break week to get his prevention of terrorism bill onto the statute book . The existing powers allowing terror suspects to be detained in Belmarsh lapse next Monday.

Close aides last night denied claims that Mr Clarke would announce fresh concessions to avoid an embarrassing defeat later today when the detailed operation of the bill comes under renewed attack from a cross-party alliance of peers in the House of Lords. Instead he will wait and see what shape the bill is in when it returns to the Commons on Wednesday and what concessions - if any - he needs to make to head off a revolt even more dangerous than the one that ended with last week's narrow 14-vote Labour majority.

The official Home Office assessment of the emergency anti-terrorist legislation prepared by senior civil servants also admits that only 10 to 20 terror suspects are expected to be issued with control orders each year. "The figures for those expected to be subject to a control order are not expected to be substantial," the report says.

That conclusion appears to conflict with warnings from Tony Blair who spoke of hundreds of potential terrorists in a recent radio interview.

The former Metropolitan Police commissioner, John Stevens, also said yesterday that at least 100 - and probably nearer 200 - al-Qaida trained fighters were "walking the streets of Britain" and potentially able to carry out devastating terror attacks. Writing in the News of the World, Lord Stevens said that "the main opposition to the bill is from people who simply haven't understood the brutal reality of the world we live in".

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, accused ministers of sending out contradictory messages about the scope of the legislation.

"If we're being asked to take exceptional powers we should at least be given an idea of how often they will be used. The bill must be radically amended in the Lords to give defendants proper safeguards, and to make sure that these powers are only used in the very few cases where prosecutions cannot be brought," Mr Oaten said."

The Home Office report estimates it will cost between £100,000 and £250,000 a year to keep 20 terror suspects under surveillance for a year, including the cost of tracking their bank accounts.

But it makes no assessment of the costs of imposing a full "house arrest" on a terror suspect, perhaps reflecting Mr Clarke's determination to keep such powers in reserve.

Securicor and Group 4 are already contracted by the government to run the electronic tagging systems monitoring the movements of sex offenders and criminals released on licence from prison.

Although the private security companies have a relatively good record, the use of private security staff to minimise costs will raise fresh questions about their security vetting.

Harry Fletcher, of Napo, the probation officers union, said if the government was right and "these people were amongst the most dangerous in the country, the monitoring should be the responsibility of the state and not private security companies. The information that will be available to these people will be highly sensitive.

"To have private companies in the intelligence loop could compromise that process. The people who currently monitor electronic tags are predominantly low paid with minimal training. Do we really want national security in these hands?"

A "race equality impact assessment" drawn up by senior Home Office officials will also fuel criticism in the Lords. They admit the Muslim community "may feel disproportionately affected by the new anti-terror powers".

The Home Office assessment says: "While the powers are designed for general application, whatever the nature of the threat, at present the greatest threat to the United Kingdom is assessed to be from extremists who justify their acts with reference to Islam.

"Muslims are a faith group and can come from any racial group, but the majority of Muslims resident in the UK are of Asian origin.

"With this in mind, we will seek to engage local communities if possible where action under the new provisions may have a direct bearing on an individual within their area.

"Our aim is to reduce community tension by reducing the fear of a terrorist attack. We can pursue this goal by engaging with community lead ers of whatever ethnic/faith background."

It adds that a system of safeguards is to be built in to ensure that control orders will not be used to target groups because of their race or religion and that efforts will be made to minimise any adverse impact on community relations.

reference=http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1432057,00.html?gusrc=rss