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/7143187.stm

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

Version 0 Version 1
More calls to ditch terror plans More calls to ditch terror plans
(about 7 hours later)
The government must drop its plans to extend the length of time terror suspects can be held without charge, a parliamentary committee has said. Ministers have been urged to drop proposals to extend the limit on holding terror suspects without charge, by a second Parliamentary committee.
The joint committee on human rights said ministers had not proved a need to increase the limit from 28 to 42 days. A day after an MPs' committee ruled there was no evidence to support an extension from 28 to 42 days, a joint committee of MPs and peers has agreed.
The MPs and peers said civil liberties safeguards proposed by the home secretary would be "virtually useless". The joint committee on human rights (JCHR) also said proposed safeguards in the plan would be "virtually useless".
The report comes a day after another MPs' group said there was "no evidence" changes to terror laws were needed, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she would continue to seek a consensus.
The government has said it is aiming to build a cross-party consensus on extending detention periods. The JCHR report comes a day after the home affairs committee ruled that ministers had not made a convincing case for extending the limit.
But previous plans for a 90-day limit were voted down by Tory, Lib Dem and some Labour MPs in 2005. 'Murder and mayhem'
'Ill-conceived' Ms Smith says, owing to the increasing complexity of terrorism cases, police may need to hold someone longer than 28 days in order to "prosecute people who want to cause murder and mayhem on our streets".
The current 28-day maximum was the agreed compromise. But plans to extend the limit before have proved controversial and moves to extend it to 90 days in 2005 were defeated by a combination of Tory, Lib Dem and some Labour MPs.
Ms Smith's latest proposals would involve the House of Commons and the House of Lords approving an extension to 42 days in exceptional cases. If the government is genuinely concerned to build a national consensus on counter-terrorism policy, it should drop this ill-conceived proposal Andrew DismoreJCHR chairman class="" href="/1/hi/uk_politics/7142685.stm">'No case' for longer limit
We can see no reason why the proposal to extend the limit for pre-charge detention to 42 days should be brought before Parliament at this time Andrew DismoreCommittee chairman The home secretary has been praised for her approach in trying to seek a consensus on extending the limit.
But the committee said this would be "virtually useless as a safeguard" and would also run the risk of seriously prejudicing any future criminal trials of suspects being questioned at the time. But JCHR chairman Andrew Dismore, a Labour MP, told the BBC: "There is no consensus that there should be any extension beyond 28 days - there's no evidence to support this and 28 days has proved to be entirely sufficient so far.
Its chairman, Labour MP Andrew Dismore, said: "If the government is genuinely concerned to build a national consensus on counter-terrorism policy, it should drop this ill-conceived proposal and work with us and others to identify better ways of ensuring terrorism suspects are successfully prosecuted. "There is a consensus about alternatives, such as post-charge questioning, the use of intercept evidence, charging people on a much lower threshold of reasonable suspicion and the use of new offences which are much easier to show - such as acts preparatory to terrorism."
"We can see no reason why the proposal to extend the limit for pre-charge detention to 42 days should be brought before Parliament at this time." Phone taps
The report said the Crown Prosecution Service was not calling for more time, which was "devastating" to Ms Smith's argument. His committee's report said the government had "failed to consider" how to use the alternatives to avoid the risk of investigation teams running out of time.
On Thursday, the Commons home affairs select committee said the case for the 42-day limit had not been proved. The home affairs committee report also favoured other legal changes - such as allowing "intercept" evidence like phone taps in court.
It added that, instead, the government should look at changing the law to allow the use of intercept evidence, such as evidence from phone taps or bugging, in courts and to continue questioning suspects after they have been charged. The committee's report is another nail in a coffin that the government should never have exhumed in the first place Eric MetcalfeJustice class="" href="/1/hi/uk_politics/7130072.stm">Smith plans 42-day limit class="" href="/1/hi/uk_politics/7137927.stm">Detention plan 'a charade'
The government and police say the detention limit for terror suspects must be extended because the complexity of plots is growing. Ms Smith's latest proposals would involve the House of Commons and the House of Lords approving an extension to 42 days in exceptional cases, within 30 days.
But the JCHR said that would be "virtually useless as a safeguard" as the delay would mean a suspect could end up being held for 42 days anyway, even if Parliament eventually voted against it.
It might also jeopardise any future trial, the committee said.
'Not convinced'
And the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service was not calling for more time, was "devastating" to Ms Smith's argument, it found.
Mr Dismore urged the government to "drop this ill-conceived proposal".
In response, Ms Smith said she would "look carefully" at the committee's report and continue to seek a Parliamentary consensus on the proposals for "a temporary extension in exceptional circumstances" of the 28-day limit.
But she said: "I have not been convinced that measures on post-charge questioning and the use of intercept as evidence would in themselves be sufficient."
She said the home affairs committee had noted there was a "real and acute" threat facing the UK.
"As home secretary I am not willing to leave this potential risk to the security of the British people unaddressed," she said.
Eric Metcalfe, of the human rights group Justice, said the report suggested the government was heading for another Commons defeat on its plans.
"The committee's report is another nail in a coffin that the government should never have exhumed in the first place," he said.