http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/09/nterr09.xml
Humiliated Blair may abandon terror Bill By George Jones, Political Editor (Filed: 09/03/2005) Tony Blair faces the humiliation today of bowing to Tory and Liberal Democrat demands to water down the Government's anti-terror proposals or risk losing the entire Prevention of Terrorism Bill only weeks before an expected general election. The Government suffered another heavy defeat in the House of Lords last night when peers voted overwhelmingly in favour of a "sunset clause" limiting the life of proposed powers to impose control orders on terrorist suspects. It was the second night running that peers had savaged the Terrorism Bill on civil liberties grounds, paving the way for the most serious trial of strength between the Government and the Lords since Mr Blair came to power. The legislation has to be on the statute book by the end of this week because the present powers to hold foreign terrorist suspects without trial will expire on Sunday. Downing Street last night backed away from reports that 10 suspects held in Belmarsh Prison or under strict bail conditions would be released on to the streets on Friday if the stand-off was not resolved. The Home Office has a fall-back provision to enable the existing powers � which the Law Lords ruled in December were a breach of human rights � to be renewed for nine months. The Prime Minister's spokesman said the first concern was national security. "That is what will guide the Government's actions," he said. The Tories had protested against what they claimed were attempts to "strong-arm" opponents into backing the Bill. David Davis, the Tory home affairs spokesman, said suggestions that suspects would be set free amounted to "playing politics with terror". Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, said the fate of the terrorism laws was now in Mr Blair's hands. "He could have his Bill with a time limit which would make sure that Parliament had the opportunity properly to discuss it or he could continue with the existing legislation," he said. "We have made both those offers to him. So if there is no legislation on the statute book at the end of this week that will be Mr Blair's decision, not ours." Ministers held emergency talks last night to agree concessions which could be put to MPs when the Bill returns to the Commons later today. Last week the Government reluctantly agreed that the more serious orders for house arrest should be decided by a judge. It then came within 14 votes of being defeated by MPs over demands for judges to authorise other orders, including electronic tagging, curfews and telephone and the internet restrictions. The Lords later amended the Bill to require judges rather than the Home Secretary to authorise all control orders. Peers also backed � against Government wishes � other safeguards, including requiring a judge to be convinced on the balance of probabilities, rather than the suspicions of the security services, that a detainee was involved in terrorist activities. And they insisted that those under house arrest did not lose the right to state benefits, food and health care. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, is expected to concede an extension of judicial involvement to all control orders. Sources said he would propose the automatic involvement of a judge shortly after an order had been made. The concession may not be enough to satisfy the Opposition, let alone the 60 Labour MPs who voted against the Government last week. A leading Labour rebel said the Government needed to accept all the additional safeguards imposed by the Lords or risk further rebellion today. The "sunset clause", which would lead to the powers lapsing automatically in November, is the most difficult for the Government to accept because it has been proposed by the Conservatives. Mr Blair reaffirmed his opposition to a time limit on control orders but last night the odds were stacked against him, with a growing view at Westminster that the legislation was mortally wounded. The nervousness in the Government was reflected by instructions for Labour MPs to return from overseas trips or their constituencies. The Lords cast its stance as defending civil liberties and protesting at the way the Government was steamrollering through Parliament laws taking away centuries-old legal protections for citizens. Peers voted by 297 to 110, a majority of 187, to approve the "sunset clause". It was the biggest defeat for the Government on a whipped vote since most of the hereditary peers were expelled in 1999. The clause attracted such widespread support that the Government would have lost even if not a single Conservative had voted. Lord Irvine of Lairg, the former Lord Chancellor, who was Mr Blair's legal mentor, again rebelled by backing the "sunset clause". Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, said: "Parliament has spent the last 700 years protecting our liberties; it seems outrageous that we should be asked to allow an open-ended right to remove the most fundamental of them from our statute book." ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
