Independent, The (London): Lords accused of `gambling with lives' by voting against terror Bill

LABOUR REBELS were warned last night they risked "gambling with people's lives" if they maintained opposition to the Government's anti- terror Bill as Charles Clarke prepared a major climbdown in the face of a fresh series of overwhelming defeats in the House of Lords.

Government whips were trying to use a mixture of threats and concessions to bring dozens of backbench rebels into line as the Prevention of Terrorism Bill returned to the Commons for a dramatic showdown today.

The Government was heavily defeated three more times yesterday as peers voted by nearly three to one to impose a "sunset clause" to ensure plans to put suspects under house arrest expire in November.

Last night, ministers said Mr Clarke was preparing to give way to peers' demands that judges rather than the Home Secretary impose all orders, from electronic tagging to full house arrest. Sources suggested he was also likely to back down over demands to strengthen the burden of proof needed to make a control order.

Ministers still have the option of abandoning the Bill and renewing existing anti-terrorism laws, which expire on Monday.

They are not expected to give way on the opposition demands for a sunset clause. Such a stance would put them on a collision course with the Lords, which voted by 297 to 110, a majority of 187, in favour of the legislation lapsing on 30 November. Lord Irvine of Lairg, the former lord chancellor and Tony Blair's political mentor, joined the rebel ranks for a second day.

Peers also backed moves limiting the range of control orders that could be imposed and voted for an amendment ensuring that suspects would not be barred from state benefits.

Hilary Armstrong, the chief whip, spent yesterday meeting rebel backbenchers trying to establish their "bottom line" as ministers tried to talk round the 62 Labour MPs who rebelled against the Bill last week, when Labour's majority fell to 14.

Privately, whips fear they would lose the Bill altogether if concessions do not win over the rebels and have delivered dire warnings to backbenchers over the need for the legislation. A Government source said: "I'm astonished that unelected politicians are gambling with people's lives. It's very brave of them to think the country can be left unprotected after 14 March."

A whip confirmed that ministers were considering "significant concessions". He added: "We have to get a substantial majority in the Commons to persuade the Lords that we are serious about getting this through."

Hazel Blears, a Home Office minister, indicated that further concessions were likely. She told Today on Radio 4: "I'm going to be looking at the Lords debate today extremely carefully and looking at the points that have been made to see whether or not there is any room for further agreement."

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said any attempt to strong-arm opponents into backing the Bill by threatening to let suspects go free would be "a disgraceful way for a Government to behave".

In the Lords, peers lined up to argue that the Bill should not be put onto the statute books indefinitely. The shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsland, 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."

Lord Waddington, the former Tory home secretary, said: "It is ridiculous for Parliament to proceed in this way, even if this were not a bill which affected individual rights to the extent this Bill affects them."

Lord Ackner, a former law lord, said: "I would have thought the need of a sunset clause is absolutely obvious. The judicial process has been distorted by the rush that the Government has insisted." He added: "The long vacation is just the sort of time for the Privy Council to get down and work out undisturbed what their views are."

Baroness Williams of Crosby, the former leader of the Liberal Democrat peers, added: "If the counter-terrorism Bill of 2001 was rushed through Parliament, this legislation is being stampeded through Parliament.

"It is sometimes felt that, increasingly, our executive and even our Prime Minister, brilliant communicator though he is, do not treat Parliament, either of its Houses, with any great seriousness."

Letters, page 32