|
Anti-terror plans face Lords test
Controversial proposals for "control orders" and other measures to deal with suspected terrorists face a battle in the House of Lords later on Monday.
The government wants the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to be passed by 14 March, when existing measures expire.
The bill, which allows for house arrest, tagging and curfews, last week passed through the Commons by 14 votes.
The government says it will give no more concessions, but the Lib Dems and Tories still oppose control orders.
BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said it was "pretty much showdown time" for the bill, with all the main parties saying they will not give way.
Despite heated exchanges in the Lords last week, Health Secretary John Reid said the main principles would remain.
He told ITV1's Dimbleby programme: "I don't think there will be any further major concessions, because we have to protect people in this country."
'Make minds up'
"The other parties have, quite frankly, to make their minds up and then explain their position to the people of this country," he added.
But shadow home secretary David Davis said the government had rejected "with no clear reason" Tory proposals to end the row.
These included an extension to rules allowing the detention of foreign suspects in Belmarsh high-security prison and a "sunset clause" requiring the Bill to be reconsidered before the end of the year.
And Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy told his party's spring conference he would put civil liberties at the centre of their election campaign, promising.
His spokesman in the Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford QC, dismissed possible concessions floated in the media, such as a requirement for all control orders to be reviewed by a judge within 24 hours.
He said judicial review would amount to little more than a "rubber stamp" if suspects did not know at least an outline of the charges against them.
On Sunday former Metropolitan Police chief Sir John Stevens accused opponents of being naive to the threat, saying there were up to 200 al-Qaeda "terrorists" in the UK.
"The main opposition to the bill, it seems to me, is from people who simply haven't understood the brutal reality of the world we live in and the true horror of the terrorism we face," he said.
'Histrionic language'
But others were sceptical about Sir John's claims. Jason Burke, author of Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, told the BBC's Today programme that the main threat was from those with no previous convictions who felt it was their religious duty to act.
"That's where the threat comes from, not from 200-Osama Bin Laden trained militants 'stalking the streets'," he said.
"The kind of analysis in such histrionic language that we saw at the weekend does not help combat it."
The Lib Dems said Sir John's comments were "unhelpful", while Mr Davis said: "No-one underestimates the terror threat, known or unknown, facing the country."
The government decided to table new legislation after the Law Lords ruled in December that current provisions for detention without trial were unlawful.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has already offered some concessions in a bid to get the Bill through Parliament by 14 March.
He has agreed to hand over the power to place terror suspects under house arrest to the courts, but has so far resisted attempts to require him to get their approval for less stringent orders.
Lord Harris, former chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said it was "crucial" the government could intervene to stop a terrorist attack as soon as intelligence about previously-unknown individuals came to light.
But Lord King, a Conservative former chairman of Intelligence and Security Committee, said of the rush to get the bill through Parliament: "It's the worst way in which to legislate for what could be very significant changes in our legal system and very significant changes to the rights of British citizens."
Source: BBC News
07 March 2005
|
%20enjoins%20justice.gif)
