Terror bill: 42-day detention rejected by House of Lords by 309 votes to 118. Lord Tebbit says could result in a chemical or even nuclear attack on a

British city.

And so it continues:

link: [link to www.telegraph.co.uk]




Terror bill: 42-day detention rejected by House of Lords
The 42-day detention terror plans have been rejected by the House of Lords putting it on course for a constitutional show-down with the Government.

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 9:10PM BST 13 Oct 2008

The results are read out in the House of Lords - the 42-day plan failed by 309 votes to 118 Photo: PA
Gordon Brown insisted he would press ahead with the bid to raise the current limit for holding terror suspects from the current level of 28 days to 42 days, despite its overwhelming rejection by 309 votes to 118.

Large numbers of Labour peers joined forces with Liberal Democrats, independents and Conservatives to vote in favour of an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Bill which would delete the proposal to extend pre-trial detention.

While a handful of Opposition lords defied their party to support the Government, the three-hour debate was dominated by those opposed to the move.

The amendment was put forward by Lord Dear, a former West Midlands chief constable, who told peers: "This attempt to appear tough on terrorism is a shabby charade which is unworthy of a democratic.

"This legislation is fatally flawed, is ill thought through and is unnecessary. Perhaps worst of all, it seeks to further erode the fundamental legal and civil rights that have been the pride of this country for centuries.''

Lady Neville-Jones, the shadow security minister and former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, condemned plan as "unnecessary, undesirable and unworkable".

And Baroness Mallalieu, a Labour peer, said that while she was in the "uncomfortable" position of being forced to vote against her party, the plan was: "dangerous, wrong and completely and wholly unnecessary in practice."

She added: "We are in real danger of sacrificing something that is of real importance for no good reason and indeed totally unnecessary."

While Mr Brown had been rumoured to be on the verge of dropping 42 days, he insisted that he would press ahead despite opposition from the Upper House, setting Parliament up for a game of constitutional ping pong.

At a Downing Street press conference, he said: "I think the House of Lords should take the advice of the House of Commons on this matter."

The Bill now returns to the Commons, where Government whips face another gruelling battle to muster the support of reluctant Labour MPs. In July, the measure passed only with the help of nine votes from the Democratic Unionist Party.

If the two Houses can not agree, Mr Brown may use the Parliament Act to force the Bill through after a delay of a year - although he is said to be reluctant to make such a drastic move at a time when he is keen to unify the party.

During debate, Lord Carlisle, the independent reviewer of anti-terror legislation who supports 42 days, said the measure would apply to just five or six people over the next four or five years.

He added: "This is not the end of civil liberties as we know it, and it could have the consequence of saving the lives of many people at home and abroad."

But Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, said: "If I thought that this provision for 42 days would make any difference at all in the fight against terrorism I would unhesitatingly support it."

Lord Tebbit, the former Cabinet minister and a victim of the 1984 IRA Brighton bomb, said that opposition to 42 days could result in a chemical or even nuclear attack on a British city.