Charles Clarke has said he is confident he has made enough concessions to get his anti-terror plans through the House of Lords.

Peers began debating the Prevention of Terrorism on Tuesday following the previous night's Commons "farce", which saw a rebellion over the new control order powers slash the government's majority to just 14 in the lower house.

The narrow margin came despite Labour's Commons dominance and the home secretary having already made a major revision to the legislation, saying that judges rather than himself would issue orders for house arrest, with 60 backbenchers still dissenting.

But Clarke insisted that the second chamber would support the Bill when it is fast-tracked through next week, even though Labour lacks a majority in the Lords.

"No bill goes through parliament without detailed consideration being made, but I believe that what I announced yesterday will be sufficient to secure the agreement of the House of Lords," he told the BBC on Tuesday.

"I have no desire to make further so-called concessions on the Bill."

He added that: "There are many senior lawyers who believe that even in conceding judge involvement to the extent we have, we have gone further than we ought to.

"I don't think you should assume the House of Lords will give the Bill a rough ride."

However the Conservative leader in the Lords said the three days of debate next week would be difficult for ministers.

"I think the government should prepare themselves for substantial rewriting of various aspects of the Bill," Lord Strathclyde told the Radio 4 Today programme.

"They should consider far more seriously the use of intercept evidence in any trial and I think they should drop the most objectionable proposals, which are for house arrest."

Shadow home secretary David Davis called for "many more concessions" in order to achieve a cross-party consensus in the Lords.

Debate

The debate was marred by confusion created by Clarke's late decision to relent on the principle of who should issue the orders for house arrest.

He wrote to his Tory shadow David Davis too late for the change to be included in actual government amendments to the Bill, preferring to promise that the revision would be made in the Lords.

But the home secretary insisted that he should retain the power to issue restrictions short of house arrest, such as banning access to mobile telephones.

The plans failed to win over many of the government's critics, and in a vote on ensuring a judge decided on all control orders, some 253 MPs backed the proposal with 267 against.

Four former Labour Cabinet ministers joined the revolt which slashed the party's normal 161 seat majority.

The failure to unveil the amendments during the debate in the lower house prompted further anger among MPs.

Former Conservative home secretary Kenneth Clarke said he had never heard of such a procedure being followed before, saying: "It is a complete outrage... it reduces our proceedings to a farce."

There was further confusion when Tony Blair suggested that "several hundred people" are plotting terrorist attacks in Britain.

The prime minister's warning was not backed by Clarke, who insisted the control orders would affect only "a small number of people".

Conservative leader Michael Howard said the events were a "total and complete shambles and a disgraceful way to treat legislation".