So Clarke retreats, a bit, and agrees that a judge will confirm (note, not initiate,)  certain types of the control orders. Others will still be at the Home Secretaries discretion:

Other MPs expressed anger at being cheated of consideration of the new
legal moves before being asked to approve the Prevention of Terrorism
Bill. But attempts to force the suspension of the Commons to allow time
to consider the changes were unsuccessful.

Quite wonderful don’t you think? Limitations on our most basic of freedoms do not even get debated.

Mr Clarke confirmed that he would accede to demands to
allow a decision on control orders that amounted to a "deprivation of
liberty" to be made by a High Court judge.

He said that any application for a "derogating control order" would be heard by a judge within 24 to 48 hours.

The
suspect would not be told about the first hearing but would be
represented by an advocate when the order was referred to a full court
hearing in closed session.

Mr Clarke would retain
the power to impose other orders which would restrict the liberty of
terrorist suspects, such as requiring them to wear a satellite
monitoring tag. But the Government would introduce an amendment to
guarantee that an appeal against such restrictions would be heard
within 14 and 28 days.

Weasel words there, deprivation of liberty. As mentioned, tagging is not such, probably curfew orders are not, perhaps house arrest is. I am, of course, much too cynical, but I cannot help feeling that there are those in the security apparat who are quite happy with this turnout, this result. It will still be possible to make somone’s life a misery purely on the basis of secret evidence. Not good enough, dump the whole thing.