This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7436883.stm

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Doubts over terror law safeguards Doubts over terror law safeguards
(10 days later)
The government's safeguards on its controversial anti-terror plans are "inadequate" to protect individuals' liberties, say MPs and peers. The government has still not done enough to protect individual liberty in its anti-terror plans, an influential committee of MPs and peers says.
And the joint committee on human rights said plans to hold terrorism suspects for up to six weeks without charge would "almost certainly not be lawful". Home Secretary Jacqui Smith unveiled a series of amendments earlier this week aimed at heading off a Commons defeat.
About 50 Labour MPs had concerns about the plans but Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has offered several concessions. But in a new report the joint committee on human rights said the safeguards were "inadequate".
She told the Spectator she thought the government would win next week's vote. And plans to hold terror suspects for up to six weeks without charge would "almost certainly not be lawful".
In an interview published on Thursday, she also said she did not believe the vote on plans to hold terror suspects could bring down the government. Ms Smith told The Spectator she thought the government would win next week's crunch Commons vote on 42-day detention.
"I think if it was turned into a vote of confidence there would be massive support of the government, I don't think it would be a problem," she said. But she also stressed that defeat would not bring down the government, as some commentators have predicted.
"I think if it was turned into a vote of confidence there would be massive support of the government, I don't think it would be a problem," she told the magazine.
'Grave threat''Grave threat'
On Wednesday she criticised opposition parties for not backing her amendments saying: "Frankly, it is pretty hard to build a consensus if nobody else is going to move." Ms Smith has unveiled a series of amendments to the Counter-Terrorism Bill aimed at winning over critics.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats oppose the plans, part of the Counter Terrorism Bill, along with some Labour MPs, on civil rights grounds. These include greater Parliamentary oversight and the stipulation that extra detention powers could only be used in the event of a "grave exceptional threat".
The government argues that the scale and complexity of the terrorist threat facing Britain means police will inevitably need longer to hold suspects in the future and says the powers would only be sought if there were a "grave exceptional threat". The government argues that the scale and complexity of terror plots mean police will inevitably need longer to hold suspects in the future.
This report takes paint-stripper to the government's claims that it is installing adequate safeguards Chris HuhneLiberal DemocratsThis report takes paint-stripper to the government's claims that it is installing adequate safeguards Chris HuhneLiberal Democrats
It had been estimated that 50 Labour MPs could vote against the government, but following meetings with Ms Smith and new amendments published by the government, some have said they have changed their minds. But Lib Dem, Conservative and up many Labour MPs are still thought to be planning to vote against the plans on civil rights grounds.
However, in a report published on Thursday the joint committee of MPs and peers said it believed the plans breached European human rights laws and the amendments offered were "inadequate to protect individuals against the threat of arbitrary detention". It had been thought as many as 50 Labour MPs would vote against the plans, but some are thought to have changed their minds after studying the amendments.
The committee said the description of a "grave exceptional threat" was not tight enough. But a report by the joint committee on human rights published on Thursday said the amendments offered were "inadequate to protect individuals against the threat of arbitrary detention".
'Heavily circumscribed''Heavily circumscribed'
The committee said the description of a "grave exceptional threat" was not tight enough.
Committee chairman Labour MP Andrew Dismore said: "The government has talked of a major emergency, the 'nightmare scenario' of simultaneous plots across Britain or two 9/11s at once.Committee chairman Labour MP Andrew Dismore said: "The government has talked of a major emergency, the 'nightmare scenario' of simultaneous plots across Britain or two 9/11s at once.
"Yet the amendments tabled by the government provide for possible events falling well short of that.""Yet the amendments tabled by the government provide for possible events falling well short of that."
The report also said requiring the home secretary to declare publicly there was a serious enough emergency to justify the powers was not much of a safeguard without independent scrutiny.The report also said requiring the home secretary to declare publicly there was a serious enough emergency to justify the powers was not much of a safeguard without independent scrutiny.
And allowing Parliament to vote on the individual case within seven days - another concession - would make little difference as any debate would be "heavily circumscribed by the risk of prejudicing future trials".And allowing Parliament to vote on the individual case within seven days - another concession - would make little difference as any debate would be "heavily circumscribed by the risk of prejudicing future trials".
The committee says the proposals should be abandoned and instead the government should set out how it would opt out of human rights obligations, should there be an "emergency threatening the life of the nation". Lords challenge
It concluded: "No amount of additional parliamentary or judicial safeguards can render the proposal for a reserve power of 42 days' pre-charge detention compatible with the right to liberty in Article 5 of the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights)."It concluded: "No amount of additional parliamentary or judicial safeguards can render the proposal for a reserve power of 42 days' pre-charge detention compatible with the right to liberty in Article 5 of the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights)."
For the Liberal Democrats, Chris Huhne said: "This report takes paint-stripper to the government's claims that it is installing adequate safeguards for the use of 42 days of detention without charge."For the Liberal Democrats, Chris Huhne said: "This report takes paint-stripper to the government's claims that it is installing adequate safeguards for the use of 42 days of detention without charge."
He said the extension would be "draconian" and "nearly four times as long as in comparable English-speaking countries". Later on BBC One's Question Time the Conservative former foreign secretary Lord Hurd said he the measure may get through the Commons, but he was "pretty sure" it would be thrown out when the Counter-Terrorism Bill reached the Lords.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the pressure group Liberty, told the programme: "It's not justified, it's wrong in principle."
Of the government's amendments she added: "They are not concessions, nobody who doesn't want to be fooled is going to fooled by those are concessions... They are rubbish, let's not be conned."
But Foreign Secretary David Miliband said since the pre-charge detention period had been extended from 14 to 28 days, there had been three cases where people had been held for up to 27 days.
"It's right that we take out the insurance policy - this isn't a target that we are aiming for, 42 days, it's an insurance policy that we might need the 29th, the 30th or more days."