Both sides need to be heard in this terror law controversy

TWO views on civil liberties in an era of heightened concern over terrorist attacks were brought into sharp contrast yesterday, illustrating the difficult balancing act that the authorities have to strike.

In the Commons, Home Secretary Theresa May announced stricter tests for police stop-and-search powers, following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that they were unlawful. The police will now not be allowed to use the power under Section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act to search unless they "reasonably suspect" a person of being a terrorist.

She said "the first duty of government" was to protect the public, "but that duty must never be used as a reason to ride roughshod over our civil liberties".

The European Court's judgment had found the use of Section 44 amounted to "the violation of the right to a private life". It ruled the powers were "drawn too broadly at the time of their initial authorisation and when they are used" and lacked sufficient safeguards to protect civil liberties. Here, the government had little option but to conform to the ECHR ruling - its judgments cannot be appealed. But it was broadly welcomed by the human rights campaign group Liberty, whose director, Shami Chakrabarti, said it "is a very important day for personal privacy, protest rights and race equality in Britain".

That is one point of view. Here in Scotland, the police have another. Yesterday, Scotland's most senior counter-terrorism officer, Assistant Chief Constable Colin McCashey, warned that further reductions in police powers could leave the country vulnerable to attacks. He said the threat, either from homegrown terrorists or abroad, was as high now as it was at the times of the London bombings and the Glasgow Airport attack. He wants to be involved in any discussions about future changes to terror laws.

The Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland (APCOS) co-ordinator for counter-terrorism argues that Section 44 (stop and search) is a power that is useful and necessary as long as it is used in proportion. He accepts the need to be sure that officers using that power are briefed accordingly, "making the judgment on a case-by-case basis".

He also notes the legitimacy of concerns around Schedule Seven powers (to stop, search and detain at ports and borders) applied by officers, but argues that it is for everyone's protection that this measure is taken.

Meanwhile, Professor David Capitanchik, a Scottish expert on terrorism, said the government should resist the urge to lessen police powers to protect the public from an atrocity.

Though its hands may be tied by the ECHR ruling, the first duty of government is to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. Public outrage would quickly follow if it failed in this. It has a duty to consider carefully the APCOS intervention and ensure full consultation with the police and security forces.

This is the best way it can hope to arrive at a balance that protects the public and is as broadly accepted as possible across the agencies in the front line.