Posted on 03/10/2005 10:36:46 AM PST by ScaniaBoy
The House of Lords has defied Tony Blair's personal intervention in trying to get the terror Bill rushed through, repeating the crushing defeats it inflicted on the Government earlier in the week.
The Prime Minister had said there was "no reason now not to support" the Prevention of Terror Bill after the Government had made concessions.
"It is messing around," Mr Blair added.
He accused Michael Howard of trying to "exploit difficulties for the Government" and showing "poor judgement".
But the House of Lords have voted for three amendments including the sunset clause which would require the Bill to return to Parliament after 12 months. It had originally been suggested at eight months, but it was changed by Labour former Minister Baroness Hayman. Voting was 250 to 100 - a majority of 150.
Peers also backed a Liberal Democrat move giving the courts more powers in making both the house arrest control orders and the less severe orders, voting 214 in favour and 125 against - a majority 89.
Under this move the court makes the orders based on evidence placed before it by the Secretary of State. The court decides on the type of conditions of the order to be imposed on the suspect.
Peers backed a third amendment (Tory) to create a committee of the Privy Council to review the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Voting was 225 to 126, majority 99. The committee will have to report back to the Home Secretary in four to eight months' time.
Tory peer Lady Saltoun of Abernethy withdrew her amendment that the subjects of control orders be permitted benefits because she was "reasonably satisfied" by the Government's argument that that was already the case.
The amendments come after Charles Clarke, Home Secretary, has already made concessions on the role of the judiciary in the issue of control orders and an annual review of the Bill's provisions.
Mr Blair and Mr Clarke are refusing to concede on a sunset clause.
Mr Blair argues the Bill is vital for security reasons.
He issued a direct challenge to the Conservative Party to let the Bill go through Parliament.
Tory peers would be "irresponsible and wrong" to persist in their attempts to water down a Bill which both the police and the security services believe is necessary, he said, urging them to accept the decision of the elected house.
"Enough is enough," he added.
"The directly-elected House of Commons has now made its view very, very clear indeed."
The Lib Dems are concerned about the standard of proof required for a control order, as well as "the important issue that a defendant should be able to hear what the charge is against them".
Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat leader, said a concession on a sunset clause would not be enough. He said the Government would have to make further moves to win his party's support.
The Government needs to get the legislation through Parliament by the end of the week, because existing provisions permitting the detention without trial of terror suspects in Belmarsh high-security prison expire on Monday.
Mr Clarke has tabled an order which would allow the renewal of the provisions if the Bill fails, even though they have been condemned as unlawful by the Law Lords.
But it is possible that the detainees, who have been held for three years following the September 11 attacks in the US, will walk free.
The new legislation would create "control orders" allowing restrictions to be imposed without trial on those suspected of involvement in terrorist plots, ranging from curfews and electronic tagging to bans on the use of the telephone or the internet up to full house arrest.
This is a hard loss for Mr Blair. He may well lose the election on this issue.
I know he has been a good ally in the WOT - However, one should not forget that if it hadn't been for him the invasion would happened earlier, and then maybe WMD's might have been found.
Anyhow, Blair and Labour will try to sell out Britain to the EU - a loss for Labour and a win for the Tories will ensure that the US will have a stable ally in Europe for another couple of years.
Ping!
However, on the subject of preventing terrorists from killing Britons, Blair is unwilling to use that same procedure? Robert Benchley did describe "riding to hounds" as "the unspeakable pursuing the inedible." However, is protecting foxes from hunting MORE important than protecting Britons from terrorists?
Congressman Billybob
He may well invoke that clause - but I think he will have to wait until the next sitting of the House, which will be after the election. (I may be wrong on this - better ask MadIvan or some of the other posters from UK.)
However, I think you are wrong to assume that passing this bill with the ammendments would necessary endanger the lives of British citizens.
To have a committee to follow up the working of this law is hardly too much to ask for.
Remember that this is not the first time that terrorism has hit Europe. It may well be that the stakes are higher now than in the 70s and 80s, but it was possible to defeat the terrorists then without totally disrupting the fine web that is the rule-of-law.
Correct ScaniaBoy, the "Parliament Act" which allows the House of Commons to override the House of Lords can only be used a year after the measure was originally introduced, and then only if the bill has been introduced in two subsequent sessions of Parliament (each Parliament is divided into four of five yearly sessions).
Nah they downsized it. They got rid of the heriditaries and replaced them with a smaller amount of life nominated peers - kind of like the SCOTUS but with Lords.
I personally prefer this system to an elected one, after all they have kept both socialist and conservative at bay when it has been necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.