The government has moved to appease opposition critics of controversial anti-terror legislation.

David Blunkett has offered a compromise after a series of defeats in the House of Lords jeopardised the progress of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. The government is seeking to push the legislation through parliament by next Thursday.

The climbdown covers two of the lengthy bill's most contentious clauses - a new offence of religious hatred and arrangements allowing the government to introduce EU home affairs measures via secondary legislation without full parliamentary scrutiny.

The home secretary's amendments go back to the House of Lords on Monday.

On religious hatred, the amended clause will spell out guidelines from the attorney-general, defining what constitutes incitement to religious hatred in a bid to soothe fears that the law could impact on free speech.

The second amendment will introduce a "sunset clause", time limiting the period in which European measures can be introduced by statutory instrument until June 2002. The EU's plans are due for approval at next week's Laeken summit in Belgium next Friday.

Powers to introduce the EU-wide laws by secondary legislation will be reintroduced in the Extradition Bill in the New Year, alongside the controversial euro-arrest warrant, when there will be more time for parliamentary debate.

Downing Street had earlier hit back at the opposition's efforts to fight the anti-terror bill saying those objecting to the legislation are "naive".

The prime minister's official spokesman criticised peers on Friday after they voted down a series of measures in the anti-terrorism bill. The spokesman challenged opponents to come up with alternative plans.

"We find it difficult to understand where the opposition in terms of the Lords is coming from. It seems to be based on a naive distinction between terrorists and criminals," he said.Blunkett accused unelected opposition peers of committing "sabotage" against the bill.

"It's time we stop this silliness," Blunkett said. "They are naive if they believe that the terrorists simply declare themselves as terrorists not as organised international criminals as well."

"God willing there won't be an attack on us over Christmas and New Year, because all those who tell me we are not, are the ones who do not have the security and intelligence information which for my sins I carry," he warned.

"And that information tells us that because of our alliance quite rightly with the United States and because of our vulnerability we are at risk. And it is on those grounds we act to secure ourselves."

Blunkett said the government was ready to listen to sensible proposals for change but warned that the Lords had removed four "major parts" of the legislation.

Opposition peers in the House of Lords said they "deeply resent" government accusations that they are wrecking emergency anti-terrorism legislation.

The row followed a series of votes on Thursday when peers inflicted seven defeats on the government's anti-terrorism bill, setting the scene for a constitutional clash with the Commons over the proposals.

Among the changes pushed through by Tory and Liberal Democrat peers was the restoration of the right of judicial review of the detention of suspected terrorists, backed by a 74-vote majority.

Peers also decided to restrict the disclosure of certain personal and financial information to the police and security services, fearing it would lead to invasions of privacy.

They also opposed, by 71 votes, the government's proposed derogation from Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing the right to liberty. The measure was intended to allow the detention without trial of suspected terrorists who cannot be deported because they have claimed asylum.

The government has warned that it is still determined to get the legislation on the statute book by Christmas. Home Office minister Lord Rooker said MPs and peers could be asked to remain in Westminster until the legislation was passed.

But with Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers insisting that many of the government's proposals go beyond what is required to combat terrorism, there is likely to be a series of clashes between the Commons and the Lords.

The government is now seeking to put pressure on Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith to explain how his party's peers "wreck" the government's plans while he gives his personal backing to the "war on terrorism".

But Conservatives have rejected claims that they are hindering efforts to combat terrorism.

The Conservative leader in the upper House, Lord Strathclyde, said the Lords had "found the right balance between national security and personal liberty".

"Contrary to the impression given by the government, these amendments do not affect any of the central purposes of the bill. They leave us with exceptional new powers to fight terrorism, which everyone wants. But they deny the state the right, which many feared, to go on fishing investigations into the personal lives of every citizen," he said.

Baroness Williams, the leader of the Liberal Democrat peers, said her party "deeply resent the suggestion by the government that we are trying to wreck the anti-terrorism bill".

"We were not satisfied that this bill was limited to terrorism. It went far beyond that. It clearly affected the privacy and liberty of private citizens in ways that no-one showed were essential in the battle against terrorism," she said.

The bill will go back to the Commons next week after further consideration by peers on Monday and Tuesday. Ministers say they are determined to reverse damaging defeats and hope that the bill will be passed by Thursday, December 13.