Philip Webster (left), Times political editor, warns that opposition leaders are unlikely to wring concessions from the Government over anti-terror laws
“When the law lords ruled that the present anti-terror legislation was illegal, Charles Clarke quickly came forward with his proposal for control orders.
“They were a way of dealing with the law lords’ judgment and I think he originally thought he would be able to push them through Parliament quite quickly.
“However, because of the level of opposition, even among the Labour backbench, this no longer appears to be the case and it’s very unlikely that they will come into law before the election.
Advertisement
“Instead, Mr Clarke will have to go to Parliament in mid-March and ask that the existing laws should be renewed. Even though these have been ruled to be discriminatory and disproportionate, they will stay in force until Parliament finds a successor.
“Today’s meetings come very much more at the behest of the opposition than of the Government. Michael Howard stood on the floor of the House and publicly requested a meeting on this issue, which Blair could hardly refuse.
“It is very much the desire of the opposition parties to be seen to be working toward an agreement as they do not want to be portrayed as being soft on terrorism, which would mean undoubtedly being slammed on the issue in the run-up to the election.
“Rather than forcing the Government into making concessions on the future legislation, it is more likely that at today’s meetings the opposition leaders will put out their bottom line and then Clarke and Blair will decide whether there is any room for compromise.
“This gives Blair the opportunity to demonstrate to backbenchers on his side who are opposed to the more authoritarian measures that he is genuinely looking for a consensus.
Advertisement
“Then, when March comes and Mr Clarke asks the house for the temporary renewal the scale of the revolt is likely to be lessened, and Howard and Kennedy are unlikely to stand in its way.
“It’s not until after the election that any concessions will be made, if they are to be made.
“One possible compromise, the one Mr Kennedy is talking about, is that suspects can only be put under house arrest after a judge has been consulted, rather than on the say-so of the Home Secretary of the day.
“There are other areas for manoeuvre, such as how long the orders will last and how often they come up for review.
“I am not convinced that the government would decide to concede on any of the big issues being demanded at this stage.”