http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=233092005
Blair says 'no' to any deals on terrorism legislation JAMES KIRKUP AND GERRI PEEV TONY Blair yesterday raised the stakes in the parliamentary battle over the government's controversial Terrorism Bill, rejecting a Tory offer to accept the measure in exchange for time limits on its powers. With a General Election looming, Labour leaders relish the prospect of being seen as tougher on terrorism than the Conservatives. And by again escalating the political hostilities over the bill - which must be enacted by 14 March - Labour effectively said the Tory proposal would weaken Britain's resistance to terrorism. The Conservatives responded to the Labour move last night by announcing they were no longer willing to support the bill, setting up more clashes over the legislation. Having initially indicated they were willing to take their opposition to the bill down to the wire, the Tories wavered on Tuesday night, offering to accept the legislation if it was amended with a "sunset clause" that would require it to be reviewed at the end of November. The offer would effectively have allowed the Tories to back the bill without facing charges of being soft on terrorism. And Labour would have been able to get the measures on to the statute book without more parliamentary wrangling. Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, yesterday made the offer to Mr Blair during Prime Minister's questions. "We have now put forward the additional safeguard of a sunset clause over and above the other improvements we seek, to ensure that parliament has the time to consider these issues properly before any permanent legislation is put in place," Mr Howard said. "Does he support that proposal?" Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, had initially welcomed the Tory lifeline for the bill, raising expectations that the government would take the deal. But Mr Blair flatly rejected the Tory proposal, insisting that the bill as it stands is "already effectively going to be subject to a sunset clause". The power to impose the harshest control orders - which would subject suspects to house arrest - would face annual renewal by parliament, he said. And the lesser orders would be subject to court appeal and kept under regular independent review "by an eminent and independent person". That, Mr Blair told Mr Howard, was enough. "I think those really are sufficient safeguards for the civil liberties of the subject and I really do ask him to reconsider his position on this and allow us to present these proposals in a unified way," he said. Downing Street later made the veiled suggestion that to accept the Tory sunset clause would have been to send a mixed message about British security to potential terrorists. Asked why the Prime Minister rejected the Tory offer, Mr Blair's spokesman replied: "What you need is a situation in which there is no doubt about the signal you are sending to suspects about your intention to act." Britain must show that is willing to "stick to its task of confronting terrorism", he said, saying the sunset clause was rejected so the government could show that "in an unequivocal way". David Davis, the Tory shadow home secretary, last night responded to the government move by insisting that his party was now prepared to vote against the entire terror bill. "If we don't get the amendments we regard as essential, including the sunset clause, we will vote against the bill," he said. "At the end of the day it is parliament who decides whether a bill is passed or not passed." The Prime Minister's surprise decision to reject the Conservative concession is the latest twist in an increasingly complex legislative and political wrangle over the proposed terror laws. Existing laws are due to lapse later this month, forcing ministers to propose new rules. The previous ones, allowing suspects to be detained in jail without trial, have been ruled illegal by the Law Lords. The government's suggestion of control orders, ministerial decrees imposed on suspects restricting their liberties, has met opposition from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and many Labour MPs alike. Opponents of the bill argue that it should be judges, not ministers, who impose orders that deprive suspects of their liberty. Human Rights Watch, an international pressure group, yesterday condemned the government plans as "authoritarian". On Monday, Labour rebels slashed the government's majority to 14 as the bill scraped through the Commons. It is now with the House of Lords, where government concessions allowing judges greater oversight of control orders have not been enough to stop peers savaging the bill. Labour does not have a majority in the upper house, leaving the bill at the mercy of the peers. But although the Lords can significantly amend or even block the bill, that raises the prospect of Britain either having no current anti-terrorism laws in place following the 14 March deadline, or the government reverting to the rules struck down by the Law Lords. Government officials said they believed the Conservatives had "blinked" too early in the struggle over the bill. Opinion polls are showing that there is little public unease about the proposed laws. Despite the game of bluff and counterbluff being played by the main parties, Commons insiders still expect a compromise will eventually emerge. "Basically, no-one wants to be left looking like the party that left Britain unprotected, so in the end, we'll all back down and do a deal," said one senior figure. "The big problem with that is that we end up with a bad law as a result." Meanwhile, Downing Street tried to play down the furore triggered by Hazel Blears, the Home Office minister, who said Muslims had to accept that they are more likely than other groups to be stopped and searched by police officers. Mrs Blears' comments were condemned by the Islamic Human Rights Commission for "demonising" Muslims. "Those powers are aimed at those suspected of carrying out or planning certain activity who happen to come from one community," a No 10 spokesman said. "It is not aimed at a particular community, it is not police policy to aim these powers at a particular community." Massoud Shadjareh, the IHRC chairman, said the government was "playing an Islamophobia card" ahead of the election. "She is demonising and alienating our community," he said. "It is a legitimisation for a backlash and for racists to have an onslaught on our community. This sort of comment is just music to the ears of racists." ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for anyone who cares about public education! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_OLuKD/8WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
