Minister ducks terror question

The showdown over the anti-terror Bill took a dramatic new twist today as a minister refused to rule out a major new concession.

Home Office Minister Hazel Blears failed to answer the same question five times during an interview, when asked whether the Government might shift ground on the crucial "sunset clause" issue.

It came as rebel leaders in the House of Lords claimed they would stand firm and insist that the emergency powers be made temporary - a proposal that the Government has so far flatly ruled out.

The "sunset clause" would ensure the new laws would expire after eight months.

But when asked on Radio 4 whether ministers would let the Bill collapse rather than give way to the Lords, Ms Blears repeatedly avoided giving an answer.

She called instead for the Lords to surrender to the will of the Commons, where the sunset clause was rejected last night by a comfortable majority.

"We want the Lords to consider how far we have moved and be sensible, give us the Bill and let's move on," she said.

Asked again to rule out the concession, Ms Blears sidestepped the question and said: "We think we have done enough. The Lords should recognise the elected chamber has voted by a significant majority."

Her stance surprised MPs because the usual tactic before a major vote is to warn opponents they are wasting their time. Ms Blears's refusal to rule out a U-turn could encourage

Ministers were delighted after a string of concessions on the house arrest powers took the heat out of a revolt in the Commons, where the Bill was passed last night with a comfortable majority of 89.

And there were signs of rebel Labour peers flaking off today. Lord Haskins, a former rebel, said he would be voting in favour. "I still think it is bad legislation," he said. "But I think the checks and balances now mean we can come back to this later on." But other leading Peers insisted they would stand firm and demand better protection for civil liberties in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Labour's Baroness Mallalieu said she would not flinch on the issue of the burden of proof required before control orders are issued without a trial. "I am still concerned there hasn't been a concession on the level of proof that is required," she said.

"I still think there should be some form of evidence and mere suspicion is not sufficient. But I want to listen to the arguments and see what concessions there are when the Bill comes back to the Lords."

Tory leader in the Lords, Lord Strathclyde, insisted: "We will vote against it. The House of Lords will stick firmly to its guns."

And Liberal Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten added: "We will stick with this right through." If the Commons and Lords cannot agree, the Bill is in danger of collapsing.

But if ministers can rescue the Bill from the Lords revolt, the spotlight will turn immediately to what the Conservatives do in the final Commons votes, due tonight.

Tory leader Michael Howard has said he would vote against the Bill unless it contains a "sunset clause".

But Mr Blair turned up the pressure after last night's votes by explicitly putting the issue at the heart of the election campaign. In a statement after the Commons victory, Mr Blair said the Tories would be " irresponsible and wrong" to water down the Bill.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: PAGE 13