Blair is accused of spin on terror law

Tony Blair was today accused of misleading MPs in his battle to force through new anti-terror laws.

As a marathon clash threatened to stretch over the weekend, he faced charges of misrepresenting the views of the police and security services.

The dramatic twist came at the end of a bad-tempered all-night sitting of Parliament, in which the House of Lords repeatedly blocked the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

Both sides were in deadlock this afternoon, with neither willing to make major concessions.

The battle centred on the proposal by a cross-party group of peers for a "sunset clause", by which emergency powers to detain people without trial would expire after a year.

The idea of temporary powers is to force the Government, which has rushed the Bill through in just a fortnight, to let Parliament study the plans in greater detail after the general election.

Downing Street flatly ruled out the idea - only to become embroiled in a row over a claim by Mr Blair that the security services and the police shared his opposition to a sunset clause.

In a dramatic exchange in the early hours, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, conceded that no such representation had been made to No 10.

Lord Falconer was asked by the Earl of Onslow: 'Have the security services told the Government that the security of the country will be at risk if we have a sunset clause?" To the astonishment of peers, the minister replied: "No, my Lords, they have not." The admission was seized on by Tories as proof that the Prime Minister had misled MPs.

Michael Howard pointed to the Prime Minister's words in the Commons on Wednesday when he told MPs: "I am afraid that we are not prepared to accept either the amendment on the sunset clause or the other amendment voted... to change the burden of proof.

"That would not be wise; it would be contrary to the strong advice given to us by our security services and our police, and I am simply not prepared to do it."

In recent days Mr Blair's office reinforced the impression that the security services were against a sunset clause by briefing journalists that they were asking for "certainty" and that a sunset clause would undermine this.

Mr Howard turned up the pressure this afternoon, saying the episode bore echoes of the discredited Iraqi weapons intelligence.

"It's down to trust," he said.."After eight years in power, can we really trust Mr Blair, who gave

us the dodgy dossier, to put Britain's interests first?" Downing Street admitted that the security services "do not get into parliamentary procedure" in their advice to the Government, which appeared to concede that they had not, after all, opposed the sunset clause.

But the Prime Minister's spokesman upped the stakes by saying such a clause would encourage terrorists by "showing weakness" and would discourage "the system" from making use of control orders.

"What we have always talked about is the necessity to send a strong signal to terrorists and the advantages of certainty."

Critics pointed out that the Government has already introduced uncertainty by promising an annual vote in Parliament on whether to renew or drop the emergency powers.

Lord Falconer tried to clarify his remarks, saying: "[The security services] don't comment on a specific Parliamentary manoeuvre but they are most certainly not saying we want control orders which come to and end in 12 months. That's precisely the opposite of what they are saying."

Today MPs again voted to reject the Lords' amendments for a sunset clause and a higher standard of proof.

MPs also rejected the move for a privy council committee to review the legislation.

It came after the Lords voted down the anti-terror Bill for the third time in 24 hours in an epic all-night sitting.

But the Government was refusing to budge today and threatened to carry on the "ping-pong" - from Lords to Commons and back again - throughout today, tonight and over the weekend.

The current law runs out on Sunday.

A source close to Home Secretary Charles Clarke told the Evening Standard: "We are going to carry on until Sunday-night if necessary. There will be no giving way. These are vital measures for national security and the elected will of the Commons must prevail."

The threat turned the battle of wills over the Prevention of Terrorism Act into an unprecedented trial of strength.

The fate of the laws could depend on the physical endurance of elderly peers and the staying power of Labour MPs, many of whom are unhappy with the Bill. This morning Mr Howard issued a fresh offer to meet Mr Blair to discuss the Bill.

But he warned that in the meantime Tory peers would continue to oppose it for "as long as it takes".

Last night's debate was marked by bitter exchanges and furious complaints from ministers at the temerity of unelected peers by voting for a sunset clause.