Britain: Sir Ian Blair, London's Metropolitan Police commissioner, has warned of a "chilling" terrorist threat to Britain as MPs prepare to vote on the government's controversial proposal to allow terror suspects to be held for 90 days.
After an apparent surge of support at Monday night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, a version of events disputed by former cabinet minister Clare Short and other Labour critics, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has declared himself confident MPs will back the measure.
However, while the Downing Street line is that Prime Minister Tony Blair will brook no compromise, a government-friendly backbencher has tabled the "fail-safe" amendment reported in yesterday's Irish Times allowing suspects to be held for 60 days.
The government's explanation is that, while holding firm for 90 days, this procedural device would allow an alternative to the 28-day limit proposed by Labour rebel David Winnick in the event of a government defeat.
However, the Conservative shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve last night dismissed the "fail-safe" amendment as "a government spoiler to divide the opposition". Predicting the government had "no hope" of getting either 90 or 60 days onto the statute books, Mr Grieve also played-down predictions of a significant division in Tory ranks.
Chancellor Gordon Brown broke his silence last night to back the government position in what is widely seen as a further test of Mr Blair's authority. And in an attack on Tory leadership contenders David Cameron and David Davis, Mr Brown declared he was "surprised and shocked at the short-term opportunism" of the Conservative leadership in opposing a measure advocated by police chiefs.
Mr Davis hit back, saying the chancellor's accusation was "laughable" and that, given opinion poll support for the government proposal, the Conservative position was "the opposite of being populist".
The warning by Britain's most senior police officer further heightened the political temperature. "There are people out there plotting mass destruction without warning," Commissioner Blair told a Parliamentary Press Gallery lunch yesterday: "It is chilling, what we're seeing ... and we are very, very worried about it."
Sir Ian acknowledged the 90-day detention proposal - facing cross-party opposition and the possibility of defeat in both the Commons and the Lords - was "unknown in peacetime" and would represent "a fundamental derogation from the normal judicial processes of the United Kingdom". But he said police had come to the conclusion that three months was necessary to mount an investigation and build a case for the courts, in circumstances where they could be required simultaneously to collect evidence on the Afghanistan border and the waste sites of Yorkshire.
He told reporters and their guests: "I do accept that what we are putting forward is unknown in peacetime. But I have never seen anything like what's happening at the moment. There are people out there in the UK plotting mass destruction without warning. I do believe the state has a duty to its citizens to give the greatest level of protection it can. This is different. It is chilling and what we are saying is that we are very, very worried and alarmed about it and that's the position we are putting forward."
However, the commissioner's admission that there was "nothing magic" about the proposed 90-day limit was seized on by Conservative leader Michael Howard, who told the BBC's PM programme: "The logic of what the police are saying is that there should be no limit at all."
Mr Howard said the Conservatives had looked at the arguments advanced by the police - though not, he noted, by the security services - but had concluded they did not justify the imposition of the equivalent of a six-month prison sentence without evidence.
Mr Clarke claimed to have made "substantial concessions" to critics, including a "sunset clause" requiring MPs to review the legislation after a year.
However, Mr Grieve dismissed this, saying it "made a mockery of the assurances" previously given by Mr Clarke and suggested "a major split between the home secretary and the prime minister".