THE tense parliamentary showdown over new anti-terror measures grew increasingly bitter yesterday as MPs and peers realised that they were in for a long and bad-tempered night.Just before the Commons reconvened last night, Tony Blair gave the strongest sign that he would continue to reject any kind of expiry date for “control orders” to restrain suspects.

Mr Blair had to act after the day began with Hazel Blears, a Home Office Minister, setting hares running by failing to rule out a “sunset clause” for the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. This allowed Conservatives, who proposed the idea of a sunset clause last week, to scent victory — which seemed more likely after peers resoundingly backed an expiry date of one year by 250 votes to 100.

All the while the impression of the clock ticking for the Government to find new legislation was heightened by the growing realisation that the Belmarsh detainees could soon be free.

In a sitting of nearly four hours the Lords again took a knife to the Bill. They threw out Charles Clarke’s attempt to take urgent powers to issue control orders himself and insisted that the standard of proof be raised for lesser orders.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC, the Home Office Minister, implored peers to reject a sunset clause, saying that the Government’s review system would be sufficient, with a report by an independent reviewer and votes in the Commons and Lords every year. “There are ample review mechanisms in place and an opportunity for Parliament to consider their results,” she said.

But peers overwhelmingly backed a move by Baroness Hayman, a Labour former minister, for a clause ending the Bill’s life in a year’s time. Lady Hayman said that more time was needed to look at the details of a new Bill “not in the heat of a pre-general election campaign”.

Lord Kingsland, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, withdrew his amendment calling for the Bill to die in November, but said that the year-long sunset clause was “unquestionably required” because “the Bill suspends the fundamental rights of the citizens of this country”.

The strength of feeling in the Lords was shown when 22 Labour peers rebelled to back the move to give the Bill a one-year life — the second-biggest government defeat in the chamber since 1999. It would still have been carried by 33 votes if no Conservative had voted.

After the Lords rose at 3.11pm, Mr Blair said: “They have simply got to understand: to continue to water down and dilute this legislation is not responsible. It is wrong. They should stop it. It is time to get serious. We are talking about an issue where the advice is clear. We need these powers.”

Earlier he told the Cabinet that a sunset clause would “cast a pall of uncertainty”.

Michael Howard, the Tory leader, said “We all recognise the need to fight terrorism. The question is, how? I don’t think it’s in Britain’s best interests for this Bill to become law permanently. If Mr Blair thinks it is necessary today, he can have it for a year. That would give everyone the chance to think hard about how best to tackle terrorism. If he’s serious about fighting terrorism, he’ll accept that. If he’s not, he’s playing politics and he will be responsible for the consequences.”

When the Commons met at 6pm, Mr Clarke rejected the sunset clause and any change in the standard of proof which he said would let dangerous suspects walk free. He angrily challenged the Tories to put in their election manifesto that they would repeal the Bill. However, he did extend the scope of the annual review of the Bill to tempt away some of the sunset clause supporters. He said that the measures were backed by Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner — who said during the day that otherwise there would be a “grave threat to national security” — and his immediate predecessor.

In a series of votes at 7pm, MPs rejected the Lords’ changes and sent the Bill back to them. The proposal for a year’s sunset clause was rejected by 324 to 217, government majority 107. Lords’ moves to raise the standard of proof for control orders were dismissed by 320 to 226, majority 94.

The Lords maintained their defiance when they met again at 10 pm to consider the Government’s response. Lord Falconer of Thoroton told peers it was time to accept the will of the elected House, that “the idea that an artificial deadline imposed by this House is the right way to deal with the fight against terrorism” is wrong.

He had no doubt that they had the safety of the nation at heart but “the right way to deal with it is to put before both Houses of Parliament our proposal in relation to fighting terrorism, to listen to what is said about how it may be best amended and then to amend it, which is what we have done.We do need to make decisions as a Government as to what is the best way to fight terrorism”.

But peers spurned his plea, insisting on its amendments calling for the standard of proof to be increased, for a senior privy council committee to review the new laws, and for the sunset clause remaining in the Bill

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• What makes the perfect mum?
• To keep me stress-free, no more awareness days, please
• What do lottery winners buy?