Despite talks among the three main party leaders in Number 10, the government is still facing an uphill struggle to get its latest anti-terrorism plans on to the statute book.

Tony Blair held separate talks on Friday with Conservative leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy in a bid to find a consensus on the issue.

But home secretary Charles Clarke, who also attended the discussions, emerged from Number 10 to tell journalists that the government was sticking by its key proposals.

The lack of movement prompted an angry response from the Conservative leader, who branded the government proposals "ill thought through".

The Lib Dem leader, however, seemed somewhat more pleased with the way his discussions had gone, saying there had been signs of "movement".

No change

The home secretary insisted the government would not reconsider its position on ruling out the use of phone tap evidence in courts.

Clarke said the government had a "strong desire to enforce emergency legislation which respects and takes account of the law lords' judgement and puts a new regime in place for renewal required on March 10".

"I confirm... the essence of that regime will be a regime of control orders strongly supported by the police and the security services with an appropriate level of judicial involvement in avocation of those controls," he said.

On phone taps, Clarke said he had "reviewed the matter fully", but would not change his views.

"I think the exchanges were useful but I remain confident that all parties will want to put national security at the heart of their concerns to ensure this country is protected against any terrorist threat from wherever it may come," Clarke added.

But that attempt to put the onus on the opposition parties to back measures to protect "national security" was rejected by the Conservatives.

"Labour seem to claim that unless you support their proposals for house arrest you are soft on terrorism," said Howard.

"To be truly tough on terrorism you need to ensure terrorists are detained in prison cell – not their living rooms.  And that is what Conservative proposals will deliver."

Tory anger

In a statement issued following the talks, Howard said that while the discussions had been "very instructive" there had been no change in his position that Labour’s proposals "are fundamentally flawed".

"First, under the government's proposals dangerous terrorists will be 'detained' in their living rooms – not in a prison cell. This is wholly unacceptable," he said.

"Second, Mr Blair’s proposals are based on the unpersuasive argument that Britain - unlike almost every other European country, Australia, Japan and the United States – cannot allow intercept evidence to be used in court. I entirely reject that notion."

He said there was an alternative to the government's "ill thought through scheme" that should instead be adopted.

"People accused of terrorist offences should be brought to trial," said Howard.

"While they await trial they must be detained in prison.

"Their innocence or guilt must be determined by a court of law – not by the home secretary.

"If they are found guilty, they must be detained in a prison cell, not their living rooms. 

"The same argument applies to intermediate control orders. If there is a case for them, they should be imposed by a judge not by the home secretary.

"Internment without trial will only create martyrs.  It can be a very effective recruiting sergeant and we could find ourselves confining one known terrorist, only to recruit 10 others."

Phone taps

The Liberal Democrat leader appeared rather more satisfied with the talks.

Kennedy said the government was offering some "movement" on the key issue of whether a judge would be involved in the decision to pass a control order on a terror suspect.

But he said discussions fell short of the home secretary agreeing to remove provisions on the proposed legislation which would give him the power to authorise such an order.

He added that the home secretary had not budged on his refusal to allow the use of evidence of phone tapping in terrorism trials.

"I think there is still some further discussion that will need to take place yet," he added.

"We do, at the moment, remain differing in opinion about the use of intercepts, but there will be further discussions, and I think we have made some degree of progress."

Meeting

The meeting was urged by Howard following widespread criticism of Clarke's plans for control orders containing powers of house arrest and surveillance of suspects.

Following the 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington, the government introduced legislation allowing the detention without trial of foreign terrorist suspects.

However, last year the law lords ruled that the legislation breached human rights and should be replaced.

Clarke then proposed that detention without trial should be replaced by control orders which could place restrictions on suspects' movements, communications and activities.

But the Tories and Lib Dems have complained that they contain too many breaches of civil liberties, with insufficient judicial oversight.

Instead both parties, with the support of some senior police officers, have suggested that transcripts of wire tapped conversations should be used in court.

The government maintains such a move could compromise security sources, however.