Narrow backing for anti-terror bill
The House of Commons has narrowly backed the latest reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
After a six-hour debate on the bill, the Blair administration’s majority of 161 was cut to just 14 in Monday’s vote, with a sizeable number of Labour MPs voting against the Government.
The Government was forced to bring in the new bill after the House of Lords ruled last year that detention without trial of foreign suspects under extant anti-terrorism laws was illegal.
Earlier today, Home Secretary Charles Clarke was forced to make concessions over control orders.
The Blair government believes measures such as house arrest under specific circumstances, curfews, tagging and bans on internet use are vital in the war on terrorism.
Under new provisions, judges will decide in the first instance whether house arrest orders ought to be imposed.
Mr Clarke added the caveat that police would be granted “a new and specific power” to arrest and detain a suspect during deliberations by the judge.
MPs were furious after Mr Clarke made the concessions in a letter to Conservative Home Affairs Spokesman, David Davis, for he also said amendments to the bill would only be tabled once it had reached the House of Lords.
Irate MPs demanded an explanation as to why they were denied time to debate the bill more before voting last night.
The bill eventually moved to the Lords last night by 272 votes to 219, with 62 Labour MPs going against the Government.
Earlier, former Tory minister Kenneth Clarke said he had never heard of such a procedure, adding: “It is a complete outrage” that it reduced the business of MPs to a “farce”.
Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman, Mark Oaten, said Mr Clarke’s letter made a “nonsense” of the Commons proceedings.
In his letter to Mr Davis, Mr Clarke said: “I propose to amend the bill so as to provide for ‘derogating’ control orders to be made by a judge in the High Court rather than as now by the secretary of state. I shall make this clear during the debates today.
“The new procedure for derogating control orders will be as follows. The secretary of state would make an ex-parte application to the High Court for an order. The application would be heard by the judge as quickly as possible – say within 24-48 hours.
“The judge would look at all the material on which the application was based and decide whether there was a prima facie case – if so, he would make the order.”
The bill is likely to face a stormy passage in the Lords, who are likely to push for more concessions.
