Anti-terror bill passes following compromise

A 31-HOUR battle over controversial British anti-terror powers ended in the Lords last night when opposition parties accepted a government compromise.

The agreement brought to an end the longest recorded session in the history of the Upper House - a marathon which began yesterday morning.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had sent the Prevention of Terrorism Bill back to the Commons four times in an unprecedently bitter conflict.

But moves by Home Secretary Charles Clarke to meet their demands for the bill to face possible revision proved enough to end the stand-off.

Although Mr Clarke’s timetable for the introduction of new anti-terror legislation was not the “sunset clause” critics had sought, Tory spokesman Lord Kingsland said it “satisfies all our requirements”.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said an “acceptable solution” had eventually been found. He paid tribute to the “significant amendments” secured thanks to the Lords’ campaign of attrition.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Lord Goodhart said the compromise deal was “really pretty close” to what he had been seeking.

The only outstanding disagreement with the Commons was over Lib Dem demands for all types of control order to be imposed on terror suspects by judges and only after a higher burden of proof had been met.

Lord Goodhart said that although he recognised that the Tories had now withdrawn their support for his demands, he would push it to a vote because it was “as least as important” as the sunset clause to his party.

Outlining the deal to peers, Lord Falconer said: “After much work ... I believe an acceptable solution has been found.” He said the new process would technically allow the entire bill to be repealed, which would have been the effect of the Tories’ “sunset clause.”

Lord Goodhart said the government’s compromise “does indeed achieve the purposes we want, which is to ensure that there is a possibility of the kind of re-debate of the issues debated in this bill and possible amendment or indeed repeal of provisions of this bill”.

That would have been impossible under the “all or nothing” 12-month review the government had previously been insisting on.

The battle over the “sunset clause” had been sparked by the lack of time to debate the bill, which introduced powers to place terror suspects under house arrest and other restrictions without charge.

Under the Tory proposals the bill would have lapsed after a year and a new bill brought in its place. Now the government is to use an existing commitment to introduce legislation to provide for new criminal offences for use against actual and potential terrorists to fill that demand.

As the mood of the House dramatically lightened, Lord Kingsland hailed peers for “standing firm” over the past 24 hours. This was “in the face of unparalleled pressure to support ... the highest principles in our constitution”, he said.

“The effect of that has been demonstrated by government overtures this afternoon which we find satisfied all our requirements for the sunset clause,” he added, to laughter. The timetable outlined by the Lord Chancellor was also “entirely satisfactory”.

Lord Kingsland said Tories still disliked many aspects of the bill, but they would not back the Lib Dem amendment. “We feel that what I have described as the equivalent of the sunset clause will give us sufficient constitutional guarantees over the next year.”

Senior Liberal Democrat Lord Thomas of Gresford said the burden of proof amendment was about two important matters of principle. “These are principles that are so deeply rooted in the law and constitution of this country we stand our ground on them.”

The bid was later defeated - to cheers from Labour benches in recognition of the bill’s final success - by 117 to 56, a majority 61.

Sounding a lone note of rebuke, Tory the Earl of Onslow demanded: “Oh why, oh why, oh why could (the government) not have said this 24 hours ago?”

The bill, which had to become law by Monday to replace powers to lock up suspects which were ruled illegal by the Law Lords in December, later received Royal Assent and goes on to the statute book.