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/7137927.stm

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
MPs grill Smith on terror plans Detention plan 'a charade' - MPs
(40 minutes later)
Proposals to extend the limit on holding terrorism suspects without charge are being examined by MPs. Plans to make a new 42-day limit on holding terror suspects subject to Parliamentary approval have been dubbed a "charade" by MPs.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the proposed 42-day limit, extended from 28 days, was a safeguard "not a target". Labour backbencher David Winnick said it was a "cosmetic exercise" as, by the time MPs voted, a suspect might already have been incarcerated for 42 days.
Asked why she did not want the 90 day limit Tony Blair preferred, she said they wanted to "garner support" and thought 42 days would be enough. Ms Smith said it meant the "spectre of Parliament" would hover over any home secretary making the decision.
But Tory MP James Clappison said any vote would be "meaningless".
Under the government's proposals, unveiled last week, the home secretary would be able to immediately set a 42-day limit - if a joint report by a chief constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions supported it.
'Safeguard'
But Ms Smith said there would be an important safeguard, because it would need to be approved by Parliament within 30 days.
However during a home affairs committee session, Mr Winnick asked Ms Smith to confirm that it was possible someone could be held for 42 days, before Parliament even voted on the matter.
Ms Smith agreed, but said having to answer to Parliament would "act as a safeguard" as it would put pressure on the home secretary who would know they had to be "accountable to Parliament for a decision that had been taken".
It's being done, not to buy political support but to provide the police and those that we task with protecting us from terrorism with the tools that they need Jacqui Smith
And she said, for any extension beyond 28 days, there would have to be an application to a judge, an adversarial hearing and a judicial agreement.
Mr Clappison said, from the perspective of the person being held, to describe it as a safeguard was "misleading". He described the proposals as a "flawed process" and a "charade".
Ministers face opposition from Tory, Lib Dem and some Labour MPs in any attempt to extend the detention limit.Ministers face opposition from Tory, Lib Dem and some Labour MPs in any attempt to extend the detention limit.
In 2005, handed Tony Blair suffered his first Commons defeat as prime minister after seeking to extend the detention without charge to 90 days. In 2005, Tony Blair suffered his first Commons defeat as prime minister after seeking to extend the detention without charge to 90 days.
Gordon Brown has said he wants a political consensus on the issue. 'Number crunching'
Avoiding risks Mr Winnick put it to the home secretary that the 42-day figure had been chosen because it was "the most likely" to "gather sufficient Labour backbenchers to support an extension beyond 28 days".
Asked what had changed since then, Ms Smith told the Home Affairs Committee it was no secret that, through the process of trying to extend the limit, the government was trying to "garner support" among MPs. Ms Smith said she "fundamentally disagreed" with that, adding: "It's being done, not to buy political support but to provide the police and those that we task with protecting us from terrorism with the tools that they need to do the job."
But she added: "It's our view that, in the system that we have designed, 42 days is likely to be adequate in the future to avoid the risks that this is about trying to avoid." Asked whether she thought she would get enough Labour support for a maximum 42-day limit, she said she had left "number crunching" behind when she left her previous job as chief whip.
She said of 71 responses to a consultation, only six had been "unequivocally" in favour of an extension on the current 28-day limit. "I haven't done it and I don't know what the answer to that question is, but I'm confident in the good sense and the reasonableness of the proposals I'm putting forward now of being the best chance of building the consensus necessary."
She said of 71 responses to a Home Office consultation, only six had been "unequivocally" in favour of an extension on the current 28-day limit.
And she acknowledged that there had not yet been a case which had required someone be held for longer than 28 days.And she acknowledged that there had not yet been a case which had required someone be held for longer than 28 days.
But she said there was "at least a possibility" that in the future a terrorist suspect might have to be released and she wanted to legislate in a way that would allow the government to respond to that risk, should it happen.But she said there was "at least a possibility" that in the future a terrorist suspect might have to be released and she wanted to legislate in a way that would allow the government to respond to that risk, should it happen.
Last week she said the 42 day limit would only be needed in "exceptional circumstances" and MPs would have the final say on its use.
It has been argued that the increasing complexity of terrorist plots mean police will need to hold suspects for longer in future.It has been argued that the increasing complexity of terrorist plots mean police will need to hold suspects for longer in future.
Under the government's proposals, unveiled last week, the home secretary would be able to immediately set a 42-day limit - if a joint report by a chief constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions supported it.
But she said there would be an important safeguard, because it would need to be approved by Parliament within 30 days.
However, critics point out that because they are only required to vote within 30 days, a suspect could still be held for 42 days - even if Parliament eventually refuses permission.
The Liberal Democrats have described the proposals as "messy and chaotic" - and a government attempt to "sweeten the pill" for rebels on its own backbenches.
The Conservatives and civil rights group Liberty have argued that current powers to call a national emergency are sufficient when faced with a case that requires going beyond 28 days.
Ms Smith was also questioned about plans to stage a police pay rise, which has prompted the Police Federation to consider balloting officers in England and Wales on whether they should have the right to strike.