Proposals for reform range from tougher laws to radical social re-engineering. Should terror suspects be held for up to three months without charge? Should Britain opt out of the Geneva convention on refugees? Should religious schools be abandoned in favour of secular education? Should the state disown multiculturalism? For each of these questions, and many others like them, there is no simple yes or no answer. Each must be weighed in terms of practicality and principle.

Here we consider the key proposals for change with the help of — among others — Martin Howe QC, an expert on European law; Bob Ayers, a security expert at the Royal Institute for International Affairs; Roger Godsiff, Labour MP for Birmingham Sparkbrook, which has an 80% immigrant population; Professor Zig Layton Henry, an expert in immigration, asylum and UK policy at Warwick University; Peter Ratcliffe, a race relations expert at Warwick; and John Denham, the former police minister who is now chairman of the House of Commons home affairs select committee.

NEW TERRORIST OFFENCES

The prime minister last week agreed in principle with opposition party leaders that three new terrorist offences will be rushed on to the statute book. They will outlaw “acts preparatory to terrorism”, “indirect incitement to terrorism” and “providing or receiving terrorism training”. No longer, for example, should radical clerics be able to post extremist propaganda on websites and praise attacks such as the London bombings with impunity.

This goes straight to the heart of the terror debate.

Why have dangerous radicals been allowed to turn London into “Londonistan”? Surely these laws are being introduced too late? Most experts agree that the new measures will plug important legal gaps that should not have existed in the first place. They are designed, in large part, to combat the much looser links and associations through which Islamic terror networks operate compared with the tightly knit cells operated by the IRA. There are doubts about their effectiveness, however.

Ayers: “It may silence some of the public rallies, but it won’t prevent the more covert recruitment pitches. And the legislation won’t stop information about how to build a bomb.”

What is “incitement”? On July 8 the widely read Muslim Weekly, based in London, published an article suggesting that Muslims should strive to gain political and military power over non-Muslims and that warfare was obligatory for all Muslims. Would this infringe the new laws? Howe: “There will be a risk of show trials of imams that will fail because the case turns on some vague phrase they have uttered, such as something to do with the Palestinian struggle.”

How will a police service, inculcated with the doctrine of racial sensitivity since the Macpherson report into the Stephen Lawrence murder, feel about targeting Muslims? Officers are required to fill in a 40-question form, including a racial profile of the suspect, whenever they stop and search someone.

Verdict: The new laws should have been introduced long ago. Now that they are coming, ministers must ensure that they are carefully drafted. Woolly definitions will enable dangerous men to wriggle free. The police must remind the rest of society that the great majority of Muslims are opposed to violence.

TELEPHONE INTERCEPTS

British police and security services intercept telephone communications for the purposes of intelligence gathering under licence from the home secretary, but transcripts cannot be used in court. In America, Australia and countries throughout the European Union phone taps are commonly used to secure convictions.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Phoebe Caldwell wins Times/Sternberg Award
• Raging against fake pop has its own pitfalls
• How a voice for everyone led to stalemate