The Government's anti-terror proposals today came under fire from their own independent legal adviser in a carefully-worded but comprehensive critique of the Terrorism Bill.
In his detailed report, Lord Carlile of Berriew, QC, a Liberal Democrat peer appointed as a watchdog on terror laws, said that he had "real concern" over many of the measures drawn up in the wake of the July 7 London bombings.
The judicial attack came on the heels of a barracking from the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, who accused the Government of "browbeating" judges and interfering in courts.
Tony Blair was once more forced to defend the Bill, which was published in full today, telling MPs that the case for allowing suspects to be help for up to 90 days without trial is "absolutely compelling."
In his report Lord Carlile said that he believed some of the measures - including plans to make it an offence to undergo or provide terrorist training - may be "more extensive than required."
He also said that the controversial plan to extend the detention time for suspects from 14 days to three months could be vulnerable to a challenge under the Human Rights Act and required a "much stronger form of judicial control".
The Law Society has argued that increasing powers from 14 days to three months would be "tantamount to internment".
The peer added that he was "uncertain" whether the Government would secure the necessary diplomatic agreements allowing the immediate deportation of detainees to countries where they face torture.
Lord Carlile also suggested that new police powers to close mosques and other places of worship being used for terrorist activity also raised a number of difficulties, not least how a "place of worship" is defined.
"These are serious questions and require careful examination before we introduce what could be a law we might come to regret," he said.
The new plan to make it a crime to attend a terrorist training camp could lead to responsible journalists being prosecuted, he warned. This measure was in "clear need of modification".
The measures to criminalise disseminating terrorist publications, designed to target radical Muslim bookshops which foment terrorism, could lead to MPs, peers and their research staff being targeted, said Lord Carlile.
"The Government should consider whether amendments might be needed to ensure that these categories of activity are not criminalised," his report observed.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who took over as Lord Chief Justice just 12 days ago, last night warned ministers not to browbeat judges over anti-terror laws, adding: "It is never right for a minister to tell a judge how to interpret legislation."
The Prime Minister mounted his defence after a sustained assault by the Liberal Democrats who demanded that the "wrong" proposals were dropped.
Responding to questions from Charles Kennedy, Mr Blair said that he was simply trying to "do my best to protect people in this country."
In the Commons, Mr Kennedy said that there appeared to be no consensus even within the Government over the proposals, adding: "Why is it you remain so wedded to this proposal for 90 days? Surely it’s wrong; surely you are going to have to back down?"
Mr Kennedy asked Mr Blair to confirm reports suggesting that the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith was not persuaded of the merits of the 90-day proposal.
In a reference to the controversy over Lord Goldsmith’s advice on the legality of the Iraq war, Mr Kennedy added: "Or is just going to be another occasion when the Attorney General’s internal views go unreported to this House?"
Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, said he was "yet to be persuaded" over the 90-day proposal.
"Just extending the period to three months is perhaps too simplistic and not the most effective way of dealing with this problem," he said.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has already signalling possible concessions on the 90-day plan and said yesterday that none of the measures was "God given."
Downing Street said that Tony Blair had been “strengthened” in his view that detention for up to three months was necessary by Lord Carlile’s disclosure that some conspiracies had escaped prosecution because of the current time limits.
“People should not miss that Lord Carlile said that in a few, exceptional cases three months is justified,” the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said.
The Bill was described as "clumsy, dangerous and ill-conceived" by human rights groups.
Stephen Bowen of Amnesty International, said: "Tearing up rights and freedoms that date back to the Magna Carta will only hand a victory to the criminals who carry out atrocities like those of July 7."
Eric Metcalfe of human rights and law reform group Justice said: "Ninety days’ detention without charge will make the UK weaker, not safer. The duty of the Government is not only to protect the lives of its citizens, but also their freedoms.
"The ill-considered measures in this Bill put both at risk."
Ken Jones, the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers’ terrorism committee, said however, that the powers were necessary.
"The power to allow the police to detain suspects without charge for up to three months is necessary and reflects the experience of expert investigators in the field," he said.
Plan to strip passports from dual citizens
The Home Secretary today unveiled details of plans to deport people with dual British citizenship if they were involved in terrorism.
New measures in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill would allow someone to have their British passport taken away if the Home Secretary was satisfied it was necessary "for the public good".
In a letter to his Conservative and Liberal Democrat counterparts, Mr Clarke said: "The new power will apply only to dual nationals and cannot be used to make a person stateless.
"It is designed to enable the Secretary of State to take away British citizenship from someone who has committed one of the unacceptable behaviours set out in the list which we published on August 24."
The Home Secretary also revealed that British diplomats around the world have begun to draw up a list of foreign nationals who should feature on a new banned list.
"An initial database drawn principally from a list of 100 non-UK nationals provided by Foreign Office posts overseas has been compiled and exclusions of individuals on this list are now being considered case by case," he said.
