The war of wills over the Government's proposed anti-terror measures continued last night. Jenna Pudelek and Jonathan Walker look at the contentious issues surrounding the proposals...
The protection of an individual's human rights or state security?
The issues are at the core of the debate over the anti-terror legislation and according to the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Stevens, human rights are the price.
Lord Stevens, who warned there could be as many as 200 al Qaida trained terrorists in the UK, said it was ?vital? the Prevention of Terrorism Bill comes into force as soon as possible.
?For the safety of the vast majority, occasionally we will have to accept the infringement of the human rights of high risk individuals,? he said.
Striking the right balance between civil liberties and national security was the issue facing MPs and peers as the Bill was debated in Parliament this week.
It resulted from a House of Lords ruling in December, when peers decided that the current power to detain terror suspects without trial was unlawful.
Tony Blair?s Government says it will have no choice but to release ten terror suspects from Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons unless new laws are approved by Monday. Opposition parties deny this, and insist Ministers have the power to keep suspects locked up for longer if they wish.
The threat to set alleged terrorists free is nothing more than an attempt to blackmail opposition parties into supporting the Government, according to Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
The Government?s proposals would introduce ?control orders? to restrict the activities of terrorist suspects.
These range from a ban on making telephone calls or using the internet, to placing them under house arrest.
But the legislation has met staunch opposition, and Ministers have made some concessions in an effort to get it through Parliament.
It was originally envisaged that the Home Secretary would have the power to issue orders directly, in most cases. A judge would only be involved when someone was placed under house arrest.
However the Government has now accepted that a judge will need to be involved with every order that is issued.
But there are still a number of serious bones of contention.
For one thing, judges will only be asked to confirm that the Home Secretary has followed the correct procedures.
They won?t actually decide whether the control order is justified or not.
The opposition parties say judges should have a much bigger role, looking at the evidence and ruling on whether the control order is needed.
The Conservatives are also insisting on a ?sunset clause?, which would mean the Bill only lasted one year.
This would keep the country safe while Parliament had time to come up with better laws, they say.
But the Government says it has promised to review the law after a year anyway, and this is enough.
Critics of the Bill want a higher standard of proof than the ?reasonable suspicion? that the government want.
Civil liberty groups such as Liberty argue the Bill disregards basic human rights. Treating people unfairly will cause more terrorism than it stops, they say.
But Tony Blair says he is responding to advice from the police and security services.
And only yesterday Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said it would be a ?grave threat to national security? if terror suspects were released without being subject to control orders.
The prospect of an attack as horrendous as the Madrid train bombings is almost too horrific to contemplate, but to what extent should civil liberty be sacrificed to protect the nation?
Now read the arguments in favour of the new legislation: