Lords: Clarke's plans snubbed

The government suffered a series of defeats over its anti terror proposals in the House of Lords yesterday.

Peers, including the former lord chancellor Lord Irvine, insisted that judges, not ministers, must have the final say over terrorist suspects.

Lord Condon, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner and a crossbencher, also voted against the government.

The Lords voted by 249 to 119 that a court must make the initial decision to impose any type of control order, not just the toughest form of house arrest.

Charles Clarke had proposed that he, rather than the courts, should be responsible for control orders that fall short of imposing house arrest.

In a further amendment, peers raised the burden of proof to the "balance of probabilities" before an order could be imposed.

The Lords will continue to debate the bill before voting on a "sunset clause" on Tuesday which would demand a review of the legislation after nine months.

Earlier, the home secretary effectively ruled out any major concessions to secure support for controversial new anti-terror laws.

The government is now digging in for a final showdown with peers over the legislation.

"What the new control orders introduce is a range of measures and therefore that is an improvement on the current situation," a Downing Street spokesman said.