The government considered the act a necessary response to an unparalleled terrorist threat; it has encountered opposition from those who feel that it is an undue imposition on civil liberties, and could increase the terrorism risk.

[2] The act drew considerable media attention, not least because one of the key votes resulted in the first defeat of Tony Blair's government on the House of Commons floor On 15 July, shortly after the London bombings, the Home Secretary Charles Clarke wrote to the spokesmen for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, David Davis and Mark Oaten respectively, to ask their views on proposed terrorism legislation, in an attempt to seek consensus.

The second proposal was to criminalise indirect incitement to commit terrorist acts, and would enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (Article 5).

He said: The statement "the sort of remarks made in recent days" was generally taken as a reference to Omar Bakri Muhammad who had received a great deal of publicity for his reaction to the London bombing.

On 15 September, Clarke published draft clauses of the intended bill in a further letter to David Davis and Mark Oaten, writing that he would like their comments on them.

He also announced further proposals for the bill, including a power to proscribe groups that glorify terrorism, and one to tackle dissemination of "radical written material by extremist bookshops".

The draft clause 2 would make it illegal to publish a statement which "glorifies, exalts or celebrates the commission, preparation or instigation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism".

However, as originally introduced, the clauses made little change beyond allowing police officers of the rank of superintendent to authorise longer detention for terrorist suspects.

In an opening speech which saw many interruptions and lasted 74 minutes, Charles Clarke asserted that there was no change in government policy which would remove the United Kingdom from Al-Qaeda's firing line: "Its nihilism means that our societies would cease to be a target only if we were to renounce all the values of freedom and liberty that we have fought to extend over so many years.

David Davis said that there were many aspects of the bill which he could support unequivocally, but went on to criticise some of the uses of recent anti-terrorism legislation on trivial matters such as Walter Wolfgang.

Labour MPs Paul Murphy (a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland), Tony Lloyd, and Richard Burden offered general support.

John Denham, a former Home Office minister who resigned over Iraq, argued that the bill was too widely drawn and would be of marginal use in fighting terrorism.

The Government argued that, given the suicidal nature of the threat posed by Al-Qaeda and related groups, it was no longer prudent for investigators to wait while a conspiracy developed.

[16] In addition Blair cited Sir Hugh Orde (Chief Constable of Police Service of Northern Ireland),[17] who expressed his disappointment at Parliament's eventual decision.

Critics, including former Conservative Party leader Michael Howard, argued that no suspected terrorists who were released under the 14-day regime were later incriminated by new evidence, meaning that the police had never practically needed longer than 14 days.

"[21] The bill's opponents, who included the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and members of Blair's ruling Labour Party, compared the lengthy period of detention to the policy of internment which had been used in Northern Ireland during the 1970s, and which many observers held to have served to antagonise Northern Ireland's Republican community and thus helped Provisional Irish Republican Army recruitment.

Another argument against the 90-day measure was that the police and government were working closely together as senior Chief Constables wished to keep their jobs after the plans to cut the number of Constabularies in the United Kingdom from 39 down to around 12.

Many of the twenty-five 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot suspects were held for weeks after their arrest before being formally charged, but this period lasted for more than 14 days for only some of them, such as Mohammed Shamin Uddin.

The bill was preceded by a meeting of the Home Affairs select committee, Counter Terrorism and Community Relations in the Aftermath of the London Bombings.

[29] The defeat of the Government in this matter rekindled debate over whether Blair (who had already announced he would not seek a further term as PM) was a lame duck, no longer able to muster his party's support over contested issues.