Philip Hoult hears concerns that government may rush unpopular bills through parliament


This year's Queen's Speech must have notched up a first - the first time the set-piece opening of Parliament has been denounced by the Law Society as 'a serious step in the direction of a police state'.


Chief executive Janet Paraskeva also warned that the government is 'in serious danger of overstating the threat to public order and national security and bringing in Draconian new laws which will take away centuries of hard-won rights'.


What provoked the Law Society's anger is the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which establishes the Serious Organised Crime Agency - the so-called UK FBI. In particular, the Society fears that plans for a new 'super-warrant' could lead to solicitors' offices being indiscriminately targeted.


However, the criticisms do not stop there, with the Law Society warning about the potential for misuse of new powers to force people, including professional advisers, to co-operate in an investigation. It has also attacked - as an inappropriate balance between an individual's liberty and the needs of the police - plans to hand the police the power to arrest for all offences.


But the potential erosion of human rights is not limited to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. The Law Society has also expressed concerns over the Identity Cards Bill - arguing that the case for the introduction of ID cards has yet to be made - and the draft Counter Terrorism Bill, which among other things proposes abolishing the right to jury trial for terrorist offences.


Chancery Lane's robust line has been backed by leading human rights lawyers and organisations. 'It is almost as if the Home Office is an insatiable beast and you have to keep on feeding it new powers,' says Stephen Grosz, partner at London human rights firm Bindman & Partners. 'Every legislative programme now includes a whole raft of Home Office Bills which build on the restrictive nature of the previous lot.'


Nony Ardill, policy director of the Legal Action Group, agrees. 'These are very strong words [from the Law Society] that signal that there is a huge amount of concern over what the government is doing.'


Announcing the various proposals, Home Secretary David Blunkett insisted that ensuring security and safety for the individual is the government's overriding objective, and the common thread of the proposals.


He maintained: 'This is not about the politics of fear, but taking sensible and common-sense measures to protect people. They will enable law-abiding citizens to live free from disorder and crime.'


A Home Office spokesman also insists that measures such as the 'super-warrant' and the new arrest powers will have effective safeguards and protections, adding that all the initiatives will undergo parliamentary scrutiny as each Bill progresses.


There is, nevertheless, concern among the legal profession that - given the widespread belief that Prime Minister Tony Blair will call a general election in May next year - the government will try and rush Bills through. Critics fear a game of 'chicken' between the two Houses of Parliament.


'This is just too much of a serious programme of legislation for a year's session, let alone one that might only be three or four months long,' says Roger Smith, director of lawyers' human rights charity Justice. 'There must be an enormous danger that Bills that would have benefited from more consideration will go through and on to the statute book. This is the executive driving the legislature too hard because it has got an election in the spring.'


If he is right, this year's Queen's Speech may lead to poor legislation. Whether it is good politics will be in the hands of the electorate.