TONY BLAIR’S majority plunged to just one vote yesterday as his counter-terrorism measures came within a whisker of defeat in the Commons.

The margin of victory in a knife-edge vote on details of proposed anti-terrorism powers was the slimmest since Labour took office in 1997. The closest that Mr Blair had previously come to being defeated in the Commons was in January 2003, when the Government’s legislation on top-up fees survived by five votes.

To add to the Government’s discomfort, yesterday’s rebellion was organised by the hard-Left Socialist Campaign Group and led by Bob Marshall-Andrews, who has been a thorn in Mr Blair’s side and vocal critic of new Labour.

His amendment sought to restrict a new offence of glorifying terrorism by stating explicitly that the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to encourage others to commit terrorist offences.

Thirty-one Labour MPs, plus two tellers, rebelled to support his move alongside the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It was defeated by 300 votes to 299.

Their rebellion, as the committee stage of the Terrorism Bill was taken on the floor of the Commons, came despite an undertaking from Hazel Blears, the Home Office Minister, to look again at objections to this part of the legislation.

But the prospect of a defeat on a main point of the Bill, in which the Government is seeking to extend the maximum period for detaining terror suspoects without charge, was averted later after Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, signalled his intention to compromise on the issue.

Ms Blears told MPs that she recognised “legitimate concerns” that the proposed offence of encouraging terrorism should be tightened up, although she said the Bill already contained safeguards and said glorifying terrorism must be outlawed.

“I am prepared to say that there are legitimate concerns and I will continue to discuss that issue,” Ms Blears told the Commons. “I want to look carefully at it but I am absolutely determined and I want to make sure we have an offence on which we can prosecute because for too long we have not had provisions on our statute book which have meant that people can get away with saying the kind of things we’ve all seen and which concern our citizens without us being able to prosecute.”

Her comments were enough to deter John Denham, chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, from joining the rebellion. He told MPs he had been on the brink of voting against Labour for only the second time in 13 years, although he gave warning that the Government must come back with real changes.

Mr Marshall-Andrews said the offence of glorification would have made him a criminal for supporting members of the African National Congress in their struggle against apartheid South Africa.

He also claimed that Cherie Blair would have fallen foul of such a law with her well-publicised comment that she well understood how young Palestinians became terrorists given the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, although ministers have frequently denied this. Mr Marshall-Andrews said: “Once you get this on to the statute book, then we are letting loose into the criminal law something which all of us in the course of our lifetime will have cause profoundly to regret.”

The Conservatives put forward a similar but slightly broader amendment that again sought to make explicit that encouragement of terrorism could only become an offence if intent were proven, although they added a second condition of proof of recklessness.

This was rejected by 307 votes to 277, a government majority of 30, before the division on Mr Marshall-Andrews’s amendment. Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Attorney-General, said that, as currently drafted, the new offence of encouraging or glorifying terrorism would outlaw anyone expressing admiration for Robin Hood.

“It is undoubtedly a major infringement of free speech because no specific offence is being incited. It may well be in breach of . . . the European Convention on Human Rights and freedom of expression and I would say it adds nothing to the Bill,” Mr Grieve said.

Alistair Carmichael, for the Liberal Democrats, described parts of the Bill as “opaque” while others “border on the impenetrable”. “It fails a very basic test and that is it is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice that laws should be sufficiently clear that the citizens can regulate their conduct by them,” Mr Carmichael said.

Charles Clarke told the House that he was prepared to compromise over the Bill’s most controversial measure, extending from 14 to 90 days the maximum period for which police can hold a suspect without charge. Mr Clarke said that he would hold discussions with backbenchers and opposition parties to seek “consensus” by Wednesday, when the Bill returns for its report stage.

THE BACKBENCHERS WHO THREATENED TO DEFEAT THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT

Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington)
John Austin (Erith & Thamesmead)
Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield)
Martin Caton (Gower)
Michael Clapham (Barnsley West & Penistone)
Katy Clark (Ayrshire North and Arran)
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne Central)
Ann Cryer (Keighley)
Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras)
Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe & Nantwich)
Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
Ian Gibson (Norwich North)
John Grogan (Selby)
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate)
Lynne Jones (Birmingham Selly Oak)
Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton)
Andy Love (Edmonton)
John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington)
Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway)
Michael Meacher (Oldham West & Royton)
George Mudie (Leeds East)
Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
Linda Riordan (Halifax)
Clare Short (Birmingham Ladywood)
Alan Simpson (Nottingham South)
Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
David Taylor (Leicestershire North West)
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth)
Robert Wareing (Liverpool West Derby)

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• An officer and a gentle woman
• Dame Helen Mirren is worthy of the Epidaurus
• Foods that can help to prevent swine flu