A CROSS-PARTY alliance was mobilising last night to block Charles Clarke’s new anti-terror laws unless he scraps or heavily amends his proposals to put terrorist suspects under house arrest.

Tony Blair agreed to meet Michael Howard to discuss the plans for new “control orders” after both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats hardened their stance of only a week ago and said they would oppose the orders, which Mr Clarke is proposing should replace the detention powers ruled illegal by the law lords.

It will be their first formal encounter since Mr Howard became Tory leader, underlining the concern in the Government over getting the legislation through.

The Home Office made plain that Mr Clarke was also willing to meet David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, as it appeared his hopes of pushing through the changes before the general election would be frustrated unless he compromises. Mr Clarke is facing a backbench revolt in the Commons over the plans, but would be expected to get them through because of the huge Labour majority. Some Cabinet ministers have concerns over the proposals and the Attorney-General has said they could be challenged in the courts.

Ministers accept that to secure the legislation without serious change Mr Clarke would almost certainly have to bring it back after the election.

His plans, which provide for detainees who cannot be prosecuted to be subjected to a range of controls, with house arrest at the top end, though only to be used extremely rarely, are being opposed as a big extension of state power. The orders would be issued by the Home Secretary of the day and Mr Howard argued yesterday it was wrong in principle for anyone to be deprived of his liberty on the “say-so of a politician”.

Labour critics want Mr Clarke to change the plans so that the Home Secretary would have to apply to a judge for an order. Mr Howard and Mr Davis want more far-reaching alterations, insisting that there should be trials but with telephone tap evidence admissible. They say that a judge should assess such material and present it to the court. A separate judge, normally sitting with a jury, would hear the case.

The plan is based on proposals from an all-party committee of privy counsellors chaired by the former Tory minister Lord Newton of Braintree.

It marked a hardening of tone since Mr Clarke announced his proposals to the Commons last week, when Mr Davis said that from the perspective of detainees in Belmarsh prison “house arrest is better than imprisonment”.

In his statement yesterday, Mr Howard said: “The Government believes in house arrest. I do not. If people are dangerous terrorists, they should be in prison, not at home.”

The Liberal Democrats also shifted their position to declare Mr Clarke’s plans wholly unacceptable and announce that they would oppose them.

In the Commons, Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said that the Government had a “fundamental duty” to protect its citizens but also to uphold civil rights.

Acknowledging the civil liberties implications of the Government’s plans, Mr Blair said that he would be “perfectly happy” to meet Mr Howard to see whether it was possible to find a common way forward on dealing with terror suspects who cannot be brought to trial.

The Prime Minister emphasised that “nothing must stand in the way of protecting the security of our people”.

He told MPs: “What we are desperate to do is to avoid a situation where, at a later point, people turn round and say: if you had only been as vigilant as you should have been, we could have averted a terrorist attack.”

Lord Ackner, a retired law lord, last night condemned the proposals for house arrest as unlawful. “This is a species of internment,” he said. “There is no difference between prison and house arrest: it is the same thing, but in a different environment. It is replacing one bad law with another and is still a breach of human rights.”

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth