John Wadham, director of Liberty:

"We are concerned at the suggestion that we would derogate from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the article that protects people from arbitrary detention and imprisonment.

The European Convention contains the basic protections for human rights that we helped draw up in response to the events of the Second World War. We'd question whether the UK should be seeking to withdraw in haste from commitments that over 40 other European countries remain signed up to.

It also appears that the Government wants to do this as a means to create internment - locking people up without any charge or trial, on the basis of mere suspicion.

If there's evidence, people can be prosecuted here or extradited. Suspicion alone shouldn't be a basis for locking people up, possibly for years. This would also ride roughshod over a traditional British value - the presumption of innocence.

Other measures:
Police getting access to passenger manifests:
now that aircraft are being used as weapons, it's justified. (It has also been common practice on Northern Ireland flights for many years). We are however concerned that information gathered for one purpose should not be used by police for less serious purposes.

Faster extradition, curtailed process:
We have no objection to speeding up the process, as long as standards and protections are maintained. Before people - who after all may well be innocent - are taken away from their homes to a foreign prison, under foreign laws, our British courts should continue to be able to assess the strength of evidence against a person.

Stopping the asylum claims of 'terrorist suspects':
The key question for asylum is whether someone has a well-founded fear of persecution. If their fear is well-founded - with all that may imply about the quality of justice in the country they have fled - then they should not be sent back. But if there is evidence they have committed serious offences, they can be prosecuted.

Indefinite detention:
where there's evidence, people should be prosecuted. But people persecuted elsewhere should not be locked up in a cell here without good reason. Indefinite imprisonment without trial is wrong in principle.

It's vitally important that people who arrive in Britain are treated fairly and that those who are likely to be persecuted in other countries are protected, and not put on the first plane back. Asylum seekers' experience of the system shows how necessary it is that there are adequate safeguards - and judicial review is an essential part of that process.

It's not at all clear how it will be determined who is a 'terrorist suspect' to be turned back at the airport gate. Decisions which could result in people being persecuted and tortured should always be subject to review - there must always be an appeal mechanism.

Religious hatred: Protecting Moslems and others from attacks requires leadership from our politicians and needs to be more of a priority for the police.

There are already laws which could be better used to protect all of our communities. Given the discrimination that exists in the police and criminal justice system and in the current climate it is more likely that Moslems will be prosecuted than those who vilify them.

What we need is stronger anti-discrimination laws to protect that will prevent anyone from being sacked or harassed on the grounds of religion alone, not more criminal offences.

Overall: It's hard for politicians always to protect the minority from the majority when they need the majority's votes to be re-elected; that's why we have human rights and judges, to ensure that in times of panic and fear, impartiality and fairness survive for everyone.

Again, we would urge caution. We share the Opposition's concern that rushed law has too often been bad law. The Government must ensure that any new proposals do not fall short of the highest British standards of justice".