Terror detention plans criticised

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced the controversial proposals - condemned as "messy and chaotic" by the Liberal Democrats - which would see the limit rise from 28 days to 42.

Her bid to get the measures through Parliament could prove to be Gordon Brown's toughest challenge so far as Prime Minister. A previous attempt led to Tony Blair's first defeat in the Commons in November 2005.

Under today's proposals: The Home Secretary will be able to immediately extend the limit to 42 days if a joint report by a chief constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions backs the move; The Commons and the Lords will have to approve the extension within 30 days; The new limit will only be available to police for two months unless it is renewed; Parliament could be recalled from summer recess if a vote is required on an extension; Individual detentions over 28 days would need to be approved by a judge at least every seven days.

However, the way the system is set up could mean suspects being held for 42 days even if Parliament eventually refuses permission. Such a scenario could arise if the Home Secretary only decided to extend the limit towards the end of the existing 28 day slot, because Parliament is only required to vote within 30 days.

In that time, a suspect could already have been charged or released without charge.

Ms Smith said: "This isn't about win-win. It is about legislating now for a risk that I am clear does exist, chief constables are clear exists and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is also clear exists."

She said of the proposal for the new powers: "If they did need to be used it would be in exceptional circumstances and in a way where there was a proven need for it. It is not something we are expecting to become mundane or everyday."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said: "It is pig-headed stubbornness for the Government to push on with extending pre-charge detention just as the consensus against it is deepening. All the so-called safeguards in this latest scheme are just a figleaf for an unwarranted extension."

Shadow home secretary David Davis said: "When the Government start bamboozling like this, you know the game is up. They are making a proposal for something they still have not proved necessary. Parliament is certainly not the appropriate mechanism to hear the details of individual cases because of the risk of prejudicing a trial."