London (CNSNews.com) -- Dissident Labour Party politicians failed to create a large-scale rebellion over proposed U.K. anti-terrorism legislation, but the bill could still face opposition in the House of Lords.
The government has scheduled three days of debate to the 124-clause bill, which would see Britain temporarily withdraw from provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Despite concerns about the relatively short length of debate, however, the bill passed an initial vote in the House of Commons by a margin of 485-5 on Monday. Four of the "nay" votes came from Labour Party members, while one came from a Conservative M.P.
Among the most controversial measures included in the bill is a clause that would allow the government to detain terrorism suspects without trial. The detentions would be subject to periodic reviews and would only be available if a suspect could not be deported to a safe third country. Home Secretary David Blunkett has said that the provision would affect only about two dozen people, but civil liberties groups have opposed the legislation.
Last week, the government declared a state of emergency, the first step in pulling out of the ECHR and instituting some of the anti-terror measures.
Blunkett faced a heavy grilling in the Commons on Monday. M.P.'s from his own party questioned the need for the emergency legislation and the time allotted for debate.
"When this house acts quickly, it seldom acts wisely," said Labour representative Mark Fisher.
Brian Sedgemore, Labour M.P. for the London district of Hackney South, condemned the bill.
"Not since the panic and hysteria that overcame the British establishment in the aftermath of the French revolution has this house seen such draconian legislation," Sedgemore said.
Blunkett countered by saying the bill was prudent and necessary.
"The (terrorist) threat has increased dramatically, not merely because people acted as suicide bombers but because they have declared open season on all of us, in terms of organising to destroy our lives, our liberty and way of life," the home secretary said.
Blunkett said that the proposals had been outlined on October 15 and were less harsh than if they had been published shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
"The emotional response to what had happened ... could have evoked an immediate and universal call for even more draconian measures than those that I am accused of introducing," Blunkett said.
Religious hatred
The bill also included provisions making religious incitement a crime, a measure that raised the ire of Conservative Party M.P.'s.
Oliver Letwin, the Tory home affairs spokesperson, said the Conservatives had "severe reservations" about the religious incitement law and that several of the emergency measures did not strike the correct balance between security and liberty.
"These are immensely delicate issues and there are huge questions of freedom of speech," Letwin said about the incitement measures. "I do not know, and I suspect that (government) ministers do not know, what will be the true extent of the legislation's effects."
While supporting the detention of foreign terror suspects, the Tories favor outright deportation.
"We believe that the Home Secretary should tackle the problem at its roots by giving himself the powers to remove (terrorist suspects) from Britain, so that detention is not necessary," Letwin said.
One former Tory minister, John Gummer, called parts of the legislation "objectionable and wholly wrong." Gummer was the only Conservative who split with the party and voted against the bill.
The legislation will now face committee debates and the upper house. The government is pressing for the bill to become law before Parliament breaks for Christmas.