Govt to stand firm on anti-terror plans

The British government today signalled it will offer no more significant concessions to critics of its proposals to impose restrictions including house arrest on suspected terrorists.

Senior cabinet minister John Reid made clear that Labour plans to brand those blocking the measures “soft on terrorism”, saying that parties which oppose the plans will have to explain themselves to the British people.

His comments came as Britain’s former top police officer said that opponents of the controversial Prevention of Terrorism Bill had failed to understand “the brutal reality of the world we live in”.

John Stevens – who was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police until January – warned that there could be as many as 200 al Qaida-trained terrorists in the UK.

The bill scraped through the House of Commons by just 14 votes last week, and returns tomorrow to the House of Lords, where it will face further opposition.

The British government was forced to table new legislation on terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled in December that current provisions to detain them without trial were unlawful.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has already offered some concessions in a desperate bid to get the bill through parliament by March 14, when the old provisions run out.

He has agreed to hand over the power to place terror suspects under house arrest to the courts, but is resisting attempts to require him to get their approval for less stringent orders, such as electronic tagging or curfews.

Today, Dr Reid told ITV1’s Jonathan Dimbleby programme: “I don’t think there will be any further major concessions, because we have to protect people in this country.

“The other parties have, quite frankly, to make their minds up and then explain their position to the people of this country.”

Writing in the News of the World, Mr Stevens gave ardent support to the anti-terror measures and said any delay in enacting the law “can only give comfort to the terrorists in our midst waiting to attack us”.

“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 wrote.

There were possibly more than 200 al-Qaida-trained terrorists walking the streets of Britain in a threat which “thrives” despite the best efforts of brave police and undercover surveillance teams.

Recalling the cases of would-be shoe-bombers Richard Reid and Saajid Badat - both British citizens – he said: “The brutal truth is that there are more just like them, as much British citizens as you and I, living here now just waiting to kill and be killed in their awful misguided cause.”

Briefings on the plans of militant Islamist terrorists since September 11, 2001, had made his hair “stand on end”, he said, adding: “The world has changed. We need to take new steps for new threats.

“At the very least, this new act must be passed as soon as possible.”

Neither Tories nor Liberal Democrats showed any sign of softening opposition to the bill.

At a rally to conclude his party’s spring conference in Harrogate, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said civil liberties would be at the heart of their campaign in the upcoming general election.

The Prevention of Terrorism Bill dealt with “issues that go right to the heart of the civil liberties and the political basis of our country”, he said.

“We go back to parliament to defend liberty; we go into an election to promote liberty.”

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten predicted the British government would be defeated in the Lords on Wednesday unless it was ready to climb down on its plans.

Meanwhile, shadow home secretary David Davis said: “No one underestimates the terror threat, known or unknown, facing the country. That is why we have offered the government three options to combat it.

“First, a temporary extension of Part IV of the existing terror legislation to allow the Belmarsh detainees to remain in prison;

“Second, primary legislation to ensure the extension works;

“And third, the possibility of a sunset clause on a modified bill.

“Each and every one of these options, the government have turned down without clear reason.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties pressure group Liberty, said: “We were shocked at the tone and some of the content of Sir John’s piece.

“However, to be fair to him, he is no longer an officer of the law, but now a columnist for the News of the World.

“Crucially, the important differences between the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, serving and past Metropolitan Police commissioners shows that there are many different views of the current threat from terrorism.

“The only way to achieve public confidence is by charging suspects and bringing them to trial.”