No case for extending detention, say MPs

MPs have said there is "no evidence" for extending the amount of time police can hold terror suspects without charge.

In a report published on Thursday, the Commons home affairs committee said the case had not been made by the police or the government for increasing the current 28-day limit.

Home secretary Jacqui Smith is pressing for a 42-day period "in exceptional circumstances".

She said this would be coupled with parliamentary safeguards, with MPs and peers required to vote on whether to grant the police more than 28 days.

However, critics have pointed out that a suspect could already have been held for 42 days before Parliament was given a vote.

As a result, Labour committee member David Winnick argued earlier this week that the safeguard was "misleading" and a "cosmetic exercise".

The Conservatives said the report undermined the government's case for increasing detention, and the plans are also opposed by backbench MPs and civil rights group.

Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions, said recently that 28 days has been sufficient time so far, and former attorney general Lord Goldsmith said he would have resigned from Tony Blair's government had the former prime minister been successful in his 90-day bid.

'Internment'

The committee warned that without proper evidence, the Muslim community could regard the period of pre-charge detention as a form of "internment".

Although the report recognised the "real and acute" terror threat facing the UK, the MPs said raising the limit could be counterproductive.

Committee chairman Keith Vaz pointed out that the government's proposals were supported by only 6 of the 71 respondents.

"This was a surprisingly small number," he said.

Vaz welcomed the government's approach in consulting on the issue, saying this was in contrast to the attempts to extend pre-charge detention in 2005, which were voted down in the Commons.

Calling on the government to "enter into discussions with all stakeholders", he added: "We saw no evidence that there was a case for extending the pre-charge detention beyond 28 days."

Reform

The report called on the government to consider alternative options for securing convictions without raising the limit.

It described it as "ridiculous" that intercept evidence was not permitted in court, and recommended that post-charge questioning be allowed.

And while the committee said that there were "significant legal problems" with using the existing Civil Contingencies Act to detain suspects, it called for the legislation to be reformed to allow police to use it in "exceptional circumstances".

"The committee felt that the current law as enshrined in the Civil Contingencies Act needed to be reformed if there was to be a successful consensus achieved for those exceptional circumstances," said Vaz.

However, Winnick - who led the revolt against the 2005 proposals - voted against this measure.

He said it could be "used by the government" to say the committee "recognised there may be a need to extend".

"The reason I voted against it is that it could be used to justify an extension some time in the future," the MP said.

"Although I support much of what the report says about there being no current evidence to go beyond 28 days, I did not want to give any ammunition to those who may argue for an extension at a later date."

Powers

Smith called for all party talks on the issue.

"The committee rightly have said what we need to do is to get around the table with the Opposition on what is a very serious issue," she told BBC News 24.

"It's about making sure that we have the right legal powers in place to deal with a serious and growing threat from terrorism.

"We've got to get around the table and build on the proposals the government has put forward."

'Undermined'

However, the Conservatives said the report highlighted that there was not a case for increasing detention, and called on ministers to introduce more "practical measures".

Shadow home secretary David Davis said: "The conclusions drawn in this report back up exactly what we have been telling the government.

"Namely that none of the evidence available supports the case for extending the pre-charge detention period and that the fact intercept evidence is not admissible in terrorist trials is 'ridiculous'.

"The home secretary should realise that all the evidence so far has undermined, not supported, the case for extension.

"She should now focus her efforts on implementing practical measures, to get the best use of the current 28-day period - like our proposals for post-charge interview, the use of intercept evidence and enhanced sentences for withholding encryption keys."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman and leadership contender Nick Clegg said: "With this report the consensus against the extension of 28 days grows stronger still.

"The fact that this is an all-party committee with a majority of Labour members on it surely spells the end for Gordon Brown's misguided attempt to play tough on terrorism."