Among the many sensible proposals put forward by the Government yesterday to tighten up the present scrappy laws on terrorism, its wish for consensus sends out an important signal. Terrorism is not an area where parties should seek cheap advantage. It is a genuine threat and must be confronted as swiftly as can be with the widest possible agreement. All parties must be kept fully informed of what the Government’s terror advisers suggest are effective responses and, in turn, should not seek to delay sensible measures unnecessarily.

Yesterday, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, briefed David Davis and Mark Oaten, his Conservative and Liberal Democrat shadows, on the Counter-Terrorism Bill, which is now being modified and accelerated to give the police and intelligence agencies the powers they claim to need in dealing with terrorism. It contains several new offences. The first, concerning “acts preparatory to terrorism”, is by far the most urgent. It will enable police to intervene even if the precise details of a terrorist plot are not known. At present, the State has an outdated conspiracy law, whose limitations were clearly seen when all those accused recently with Kamel Bourgass, the Algerian terrorist in the so-called ricin plot, were acquitted. Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commisssioner, has lobbied hard for a law that will, for example, make it easier to convict those financing terrorism or buying dangerous chemicals to assemble bombs.

Less compelling is the second proposed new offence — indirect incitement to commit terrorist acts. This could turn on something as intangible as the tone of voice in which someone publicly stated approval of extremism. The obvious problem here is how to frame any tightening of the law on public provocation in a way that would secure a safe conviction.

Thirdly, the Government wants to criminalise the provision of training in the use of hazardous substances for terrorist purposes. That, too, is sensible. It will not be retrospective — a comfort, perhaps, to the IRA — but it will catch people attending or recruiting for terrorist training camps.

In addition, the Bill has a number of clauses that close absurd loopholes in existing law that lawyers could use to escape convictions. One introduces “all premises” search warrants so police do not have to specify each address in advance. A second gives the Security Service the ability to seek warrants authorising activities overseas. And a third extends stop-and-search powers to “bays and estuaries”, which were foolishly left out of previous definitions.

Several important issues are not tackled in this Bill. The first concerns telephone tapping. The Government still opposes the use of taps as court evidence — insisting that this compromises surveillance methods. This is shortsighted. Such evidence should make convictions easier. The second would extend, if necessary, the 14 days during which a terrorist suspect can be held and questioned (with regular judicial referral). And the third is a declaration that Britain will derogate from international treaties to allow suspects to be deported promptly, even to countries with dubious legal records.

Even if passed, the new laws will not be effective until the end of the year. This is too late. On those matters of general agreement, the legislation should have a speedy passage. This is not a moment to play petty politics.