Anti-terror billOver the top

The government fights to pass anti-terrorism powers

PURELY in terms of its popularity among voters, it is probably no bad thing for the government to upset civil libertarians and drive draconian anti-terrorism powers through Parliament against opposition from rival parties and the House of Lords. As opinion polls show, the British public cares less for civil rights than for security. But it would look better if the struggle were won comfortably and the troops stayed in line. That was not what happened this week.

It was the law lords who started all the trouble by compromising Britain's anti-terror legislation. Last December, a panel of nine judges ruled that Britain could not justify holding foreign suspects without trial. Ten men are languishing in prison under the existing anti-terror law, which was passed in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. The judges' ruling obliged the government to come up with something else. The existing powers expire on March 14th; and if the government has not pushed through alternative legislation by then, the men may have to be released.

The government's first proposal was to allow the home secretary to impose “control orders” on suspected plotters both British and foreign. Subject to a cursory—or, in the case of the most draconian powers, not so cursory—examination by judges, suspects could be prevented from using the internet, associating with other dodgy folk or even leaving their homes. Such measures appeared well judged to expose divisions in the opposition ranks. The libertarian wing of the Conservative Party would probably have voted against the proposals, cutting them adrift from the front bench. But something went wrong in the presentation. Unexpectedly strong opposition and a Labour rebellion meant that the bill cleared the Commons by just 53 votes. It was then mangled by the House of Lords, which confidently attached nine amendments to the bill.

Faced with overwhelming opposition, the government backed halfway down. Charles Clarke, the home secretary, rejected an amendment that would have forced the government to introduce new legislation in November, but allowed an annual parliamentary review instead. He provided for more judicial scrutiny of the milder control orders. But he did not budge on the burden of proof. Except in cases of house arrest, the bar would be “reasonable suspicion”, not the balance of probabilities. As The Economist went to press, the bill had passed the Commons and was heading back to a hostile Lords.

The concessions make life more difficult for the political opponents of the bill. But they do not make for a better bill. Control orders may face more judicial scrutiny, but suspects will still not undergo a trial. Judges are nervous about their new role; civil libertarians might feel the same way. After all, judges are hardly more immune to popular fears and over-egged intelligence than are politicians. Whether the new powers reach the statute book or the old powers are extended, Britain will be left with a bad anti-terror law.

Reuse this content
When it's a matter of opinion, make your opinion matter
Each week, over one million subscribers
trust us to help them make sense of the world.

Join them. to The Economist today

Classified ads