MPs and peers have said the government should abandon plans to increase the limit of pre-charge detention for terror suspects.

As ministers attempt to extend the current 28-day maximum to 42 days, the joint committee on human rights (JCHR) said on Friday there was no consensus for the move.

The news comes after the Commons home affairs committee also said this week that there was "no evidence" that an increase was necessary. 

In a report on Thursday, the MPs warned that without proper evidence, the Muslim community could regard the period of pre-charge detention as a form of "internment".

Home secretary Jacqui Smith says that police may need more time to question suspects in the future, but that any move to hold someone beyond 28 days would need to be ratified by Parliament.

However, Labour MP David Winnick described this measure as a "cosmetic exercise", pointing out that a suspect could already have been held for 42 days before the Parliament started debating the case.

The JCHR report also dismissed these supposed civil liberties safeguards as "virtually useless".

Committee chairman Andrew Dismore said: "All of the evidence we and many others have gathered points one way.

"There is no national consensus for extending pre-charge detention beyond 28 days. There is still no evidence that more than 28 days is likely to be necessary."

He pointed out that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was not calling for an extension, adding: "The public can be adequately protected by a combination of the alternatives we have advocated. 

"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."

Dismore said that the government should "drop this ill-conceived proposal" if it wants to build a consensus on counter-terrorism policy.

The committee acknowledged the state had a duty to protect the public by prosecuting terrorists, but said that the CPS' evidence that they had managed with the existing limit was "devastating" to the government's case.

It also raised concerns about using the Civil Contingencies Act to declare a state of emergency, pointing out that the legislation "expects Parliament to legislate on the basis of clear evidence, not hypothetical nightmare scenarios".