MPs offered terror legislation deal
The Prime Minister Tony Blair has offered MPs with concerns over the anti-terror laws the opportunity to review the law in a year’s time.
But speaking at a press conference this afternoon he stressed that the Government “cannot accept a sunset clause” in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
“That would be a mistake. It would send a sign of weakness at the very time we need to send a sign of strength,” he said.
However, Conservative leader Michael Howard said Mr Blair had offered “a sunset clause in everything but name” and his party would now support the passage of the bill.
“This has been a good day for Britain and a bad day for Mr Blair. The Prime Minister has been forced to announce a sunset clause in all but name – he just couldn’t quite bring himself to admit it,” he said.
The breakthrough came after a day in which the stalemate over anti-terror laws continued.
The House of Lords continued to insist on a ‘sunset clause’ that would see the legislation contained within the bill expire within 12 months.
Peers were also insisting on a Privy Council committee to review the operation of the law and on raising the burden of proof from “grounds for suspicion” to the “balance of probabilities”.
But each time an amended bill containing these provisions was sent back to the House of Commons, it was rejected by a majority of MPs and sent back to the second chamber without them.
However, as the bill came back to the House of Commons for the fourth time, Home Secretary Charles Clarke detailed a plan whereby MPs would have two opportunties to review the current legislation.
He pointed out that the Government had already announced its intention to introduce new legislation in relation to acts preparatory to terrrorism, and MPs would be given pre-legislative scrutiny of this.
Further, the legislation currently being debated included a provision for a review by an independent commissioner, which would give MPs the opportunity to put forward amendments.
Mr Blair told reporters this would ensure there was “every opportunity” to address concerns “without putting at risk the entirety of that legislation”.
He said the proposed timetable the Government had set out formed “a sensible way through”.
But Mr Howard added: “These are difficult issues. That is why Parliament needed proper time to consider them – time Mr Blair refused to give it. If only he had been less arrogant, these sensible changes could have been agreed to in a quicker and more dignified manner.”
