The House of Lords has again voted against a key plank of government policy, this time on proposed anti-terrorism laws.

It is the second major setback for ministers in 24 hours.

On Monday evening peers twice voted against the home secretary's plans for the introduction of identity cards.

And on Tuesday evening they dealt two fresh blows to Charles Clarke.

During consideration of the controversial Terrorism Bill, peers voted by 270 to 144 to scrap the proposed offence of glorifying terrorism.

Former law lord Lord Lloyd of Berwick had said the government's proposal would be "unworkable in practice".

But Home Office minister Baroness Scotland had insisted: "We do not believe it is acceptable that people should be allowed to make statements which glorify terrorism and thereby make it more likely that others will commit such acts."

An amendment put forward by the Conservatives to instead create an offence of "indirect encouragement of terrorism" was later carried without a vote.

Home Office minister Hazel Blears said she would seek to overturn the amendment when the Bill returns to the Commons.

"The government has made a commitment to the electorate to make the glorification of terrorist attacks an offence and we intend to honour it," she said.

"There are, unfortunately, young and impressionable people in our society who can all too easily be manipulated by those preaching or advocating a message of hate."

A second defeat - by 234 votes to 134 - came over clauses relating to the spreading of terrorism publications.

Opposition peers backed an amendment that would toughen up the criteria, allowing prosecution only where an individual acted recklessly or with intent to provide the publications.

Ministers have faced repeated setbacks on the legislation.

Clarke had already overseen the government's first Commons defeat when MPs voted against allowing the detention of terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge.

Now the legislation is facing further challenges in the House of Lords.

Ministers may opt to reinstate their original measures when the Bill returns to the Commons, but the size of the majorities against the government suggests some compromise might be needed if the legislation is not to be subject to lengthy delays.