THERE are no easy answers in the intense debate over anti-terror legislation.

We all want to protect Britain from terrorist attacks but finding the correct balance between the prolonged detention of suspects and the protection of civil liberties is a huge challenge.

Our core belief is that age-old principles of justice are precious and have to be protected as far as possible, while, at the same time, we appreciate the difficulties of fighting a war against terror.

Ultimately, it comes down to trust. Do we trust our politicians, intelligence services and police chiefs enough to be confident about the fundamental change to our society which is being advocated?

The problem for Tony Blair, in desperately striving to persuade the country that holding terror suspects for 90 days could be justified, is that trust has been eroded.

The intelligence upon which the Prime Minister justified going to war in Iraq - namely the existence of weapons of mass destruction capable of being unleashed on this country - was shown to be untrustworthy.

The treatment of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, where detainees are held indefinitely without trial, is an ongoing cause of concern.

And the appalling execution of an innocent man boarding a tube train in London was made so much worse by the misinformation which followed.

So when we are asked to follow the lead of those who want us to shift a cornerstone of our society, can any of us be blamed for posing the question: can we trust them?