Have our terror laws gone too far?

In Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday Tony Blair defended the government's rationale on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. "My best judgement is that... considerations of national security have to come before civil liberties, no matter how important those civil liberties are," he said.

I am with my party leader Charles Kennedy in his estimation that "whenever presented with a problem, the instinctive response of this Government is authoritarian". It is in consideration of this that I voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Bill as it passed its second stage on Wednesday and, barring significant concessions, will vote against when it returns to the House on Monday.

I fully understand the anxieties of the public at the unprecedented threat terrorism poses to this country. The situation is grave and action is needed to protect us all. Yet, as a responsible, democratically elected politician, I am also under an obligation to defend civil liberties and personal freedom.

The Bill would introduce "control orders" to curb the activities of suspected terrorists as identified by the security services. Such orders would encompass a range of measures including house arrest and electronic tagging.

The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which allows the indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial, is due for renewal. However, in the wake of the Law Lords ruling that the indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial is a breach of human rights, replacement of this Act seems to be the best option; indeed action must be taken to avoid a legislative vacuum.

Control orders do have a potential part to play. As a party our main objection - although we have several caveats - is that they could be implemented by the Home Secretary rather than a judge.

We wrung an acknowledgement from the Home Secretary that judicial involvement is necessary, but we believe the timing of this involvement is crucial. It must be at the beginning of the process; without this we will see a situation where a politician has the ability to restrict the liberties enjoyed in this country, solely on the 'balance of probabilities', not even 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

I do not see the Home Secretary's assumption of responsibility for national security as conflicting with a judge having the primary responsibility for detention. I want the decision to be taken in the first instance by a judge on an adequate standard of proof.

The other compelling reason for judges being involved at the start of the process is the embarrassment experienced by the Home Secretary in continually having decisions overturned.

Furthermore, prosecution of suspects remains the best way forward and if measures to make phone tapping admissible were in place this could help bring cases to court in the future.

I am worried that the process of Government has become more presidential, less transparent and less accountable to parliament and to the people.

Our position is to ensure that the balance to protect civil liberties is set against a proportionate response to the serious security problems we must face.

The Government has some way to go before I can support these measures.

We must deal seriously with security concerns but as a nation we give up liberty at our peril. We must always think twice before giving up liberty to any Home Secretary.

No ...says Lawrie Quinn, Labour MP for Scarborough and Whitby

My position is quite simple. I have a very clear recall of what I felt, and of what my local constituents told me they felt, immediately after the awful events of September 11, 2001. That was a pivotal moment which changed my perspective on things. What I felt was that there are evil people in the world who are prepared to commit atrocities and take many people's right to life away from them.

The greatest civil liberty of all is being allowed to go about one's life safely and securely, without the constant fear of it being taken away. As the Home Secretary Charles Clarke said, 'The threat we face remains real and serious... There are terrorists at home and abroad who want to attack the UK and its interests. A careful balance has to be struck between the rights of individuals and of society. It is a Government's ultimate responsibility to find a fair way of protecting its citizens from the ongoing threat. The rights we must balance belong to everyone.'

I have thought a good deal about this. We in this country have technology which can work to the advantage of the security of the UK - technology that enables us to keep under surveillance people who could potentially cause atrocities.

Speed can sometimes be of the essence. Members of the Government have sight of certain information which cannot be made public, and on which they need to be able to respond quickly.

There is always a risk of having people slip away or disappear. If, because of a civil rights issue, the police and security services had to come into court to supply evidence before they were permitted to take certain steps, that would remove from them much of the advantage they have.

Therefore, when the Law Lords said that existing arrangements allowing for the detention or surveillance of terrorist suspects were problematic, the Government had to look at designing a different mechanism.

I would be failing in my duty, just as the Prime Minister would be failing in his duty and every MP would be failing in their duty, if we did not defend to the utmost the human right to live peacefully, lawfully and safely. When I was first elected, one of the things I promised the people of Scarborough and Whitby was that I wanted to be their MP to solve problems, not make problems.

I would not want to go into the Chamber of the House of Commons to hear a statement about an outrage that could have been prevented.

We live in extremely dangerous times and we need efficient tools to ensure we can all continue to live in a safe environment.

We have put an awful lot of thought into the legislation. With the proposals we have at the moment, there is an opportunity for judicial review of any decision taken by the Home Secretary after a maximum of seven days.

But our security forces have to be able to act, and act quickly, if there is a real threat to public safety. That is why I voted for this legislation.

The new Bill

THE Prevention of Terrorism Bill which MPs approved by a margin of 309-233 on Wednesday night introduces "control orders" that would allow the Home Secretary to stop terror suspects travelling or using the phone or internet - without the need for a trial.

More controversial powers to keep terror suspects under house arrest are being kept in reserve.

The Bill is controversial because a politician, rather than a court, would have the power to deprive a UK citizen of their liberty. This, some claim, is a fundamental breach of our civil liberties. The Government insists the new powers will be a vital tool against fanatics who cannot be prosecuted in the courts.

The Bill is scheduled to come back to the Commons next Monday for further debate. Many MPs opposed to the Bill in its present form are hoping to wring concessions out of the Government. The Bill will then go on to the Lords, where it is likely to face substantial resistance.

Key features of the Bill include:

- Giving the Home Secretary powers to make control orders with a range of conditions, including a ban on internet or mobile phone use, restrictions on movement and travel, restrictions on associations with named individuals, curfews and tagging

- Such control orders, when made, would be subject to independent judicial scrutiny within seven days. This would involve hearing evidence in open and closed session by the High Court, with the interests of the subject of the order represented by a special advocate in closed session

- Breach of a control order would be a criminal offence - triable in the criminal courts and punishable by imprisonment

- There would be regular reporting to Parliament on orders made; and an independent annual review of the powers to make such orders

- The orders would apply to British and foreign nationals suspected of any terrorist-related activity. They would replace powers to detain suspected foreign terror suspects under part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA), which the Law Lords concluded in their ruling last December were discriminatory and disproportionate on the grounds that they only applied to foreign nationals.

- The full text of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill can be viewed at www.parliament.uk

How your MP voted...

Against the Bill:

Ann McIntosh, Conservative, Vale of York: "We have serious reservations about Government plans to impose control orders, because such orders would be passed on the say-so of a politician rather than a court."

John Greenway, Conservative, Ryedale: "If the Home Secretary has overwhelming evidence that a person poses a threat to the country, I cannot for the life of me think that a senior judge presiding in court is not going to agree to a containment. But for it to be purely at the behest of a politician is fundamentally wrong."

Phil Willis, Liberal Democrat, Harrogate: "We must always think twice before giving up liberty to any Home Secretary"

For the Bill:

Hugh Bayley, Labour, York: "The risk of an al Qaida attack is real and the Government cannot ignore it. But the Home Secretary must listen to what MPs are saying. I would like to see a right of appeal to a judge for anyone who is detained."

Lawrie Quinn, Labour, Scarborough: "The greatest civil liberty of all is being allowed to go about one's life safely and securely."

Abstained:

John Grogan, Labour, Selby: "I think Parliament should always be very careful in compromising civil liberties we've had for generations. It is a judge who should lock people up, not politicians."

Updated: 08:53 Friday, February 25, 2005