First stages The bill was introduced in the
House of Commons on 22 February 2005 and allows the Home Secretary to make "control orders" for people he suspects of involvement in
terrorism, including placing them under
house arrest, restricting their access to
mobile telephones and the
internet and requiring that visitors be named in advance, so that they may be vetted by
MI5. The bill passed the Commons, despite a substantial rebellion by
backbench Labour Members of Parliament (MPs), and was sent to the
House of Lords, which made several amendments, the most significant being the introduction of a
sunset clause, so the act would automatically expire in March 2006, unless it were renewed by further legislation, much like the
Prevention of Terrorism Acts of 1974–1989. Other amendments included requiring the
Director of Public Prosecutions to make a statement that a prosecution would be impossible before each individual control order could be issued, to require a judge to authorise each control order, requiring a review of the legislation by
Privy Councillors and restoring the "normal"
burden of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt"), rather than the weaker "balance of probabilities". The vote in the Lords was notable for being the first time
Lord Irvine, friend and mentor of
Tony Blair and recent
Lord Chancellor, ever voted against the
Labour government.
Dispute over amendments The Commons considered the Lords' amendments on 10 March and rejected most of them. The Bill was exchanged between the two chambers several more times that parliamentary day, which extended well into 11 March and led to the longest sitting of the House of Lords in its history, of over 30 hours. (Parliamentary custom dictates that the parliamentary day continues until the House is adjourned. Therefore, although it was midnight March 11 outside the House of Commons, inside it was still March 10.) That the bill was "
ping-ponged" between both houses was evidence of an unusual
constitutional crisis, notable because the urgency of the legislation – the previous powers to detain the individuals in HMP Belmarsh and elsewhere were due to expire on 14 March 2005 – meant that the
Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the usual device to handle situations where the Commons and Lords cannot agree on a measure, could not be invoked in order to acquire royal assent without the consent of the upper house.
Compromise Eventually, a compromise was agreed, with both sides claiming victory: the opposition parties conceded all their amendments for the promise of a review of the legislation a year later. The Bill received royal assent later that day, and the first control orders, to deal with the ten suspects previously interned in HMP Belmarsh, were issued by
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, immediately. Some critics were still unhappy with the compromise reached in the evening of 11 March, pointing out that an act that removes the 790-year-old principle of
habeas corpus, codified in
Magna Carta, should not have been rushed through Parliament in the first place and that a review leaves it to the opposition to defeat the legislation, unlike a sunset clause, which would require the government to prove that these extraordinary powers were still a necessary and proportionate response to the threat of terrorism in the UK; comparisons were made with the detention provisions of
South Africa's
apartheid-era
Terrorism Act No 83 of 1967. Few critics claimed that the terrorist threat was not real, merely that these powers were not the best way to address that threat, that arbitrary powers are more likely to lead to a
miscarriage of justice and that prosecution in a court of law would be a better solution. The most commonly presented counter-argument was that protecting British citizens' freedom to live and go about their lives without fear of terrorism is more important than the
civil liberties of suspected terrorists. == Restrictions permitted by the act ==