It depends on what you mean by “workable” and from which, or whose, perspective you are looking at the laws. The most talked about and controversial aspect of anti-terror legislation is the amount of time police can hold suspects without charge. But there are also other aspects of anti-terror law such as control orders, which place restrictions on the liberty of terror suspects whilst those suspects remains in the community.

If by workable you mean do these measures sufficiently protect the public, the answer has to be no, not completely. Protection against terrorism can only really be achieved by high-quality intelligence and efficient policing (irrespective of extra powers) whilst any longer term solution has to be social and political.

From the point of view of the civil liberties of the suspects, different issues arise again. But often it is not so much a question of whether measures are workable, as whether they are implemented in a way that is fair. So, for example, police currently have up to 28 days to hold terror suspects for questioning without charge. If you consider that the offences being investigated may put the lives of hundreds or thousands at risk, this does not seem excessive. But the assumption has to be that all suspects are innocent unless proven otherwise, and there should be constant review by the courts of police procedure to ensure the investigation is being carried out properly and expeditiously, and to prevent the unnecessary incarceration of those against whom there is only the vaguest suspicion.

My own personal view is that the precise wording and time limits within the legislation is ultimately less important that the fairness and efficiency with which it is implemented, and the safeguard measures in place to ensure police powers are not abused.