David Byers
We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times

Gordon Brown faces his biggest political battle since taking over as Prime Minister after opposition parties pledged to defeat a renewed bid to extend the time that suspected terrorists can be detained without charge from 28 to 42 days.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, today announced the Government's latest proposals to break the political deadlock, claiming that police required the option of having more time to question terror suspects when there was a "compelling operational need".
In a fresh attempt to win over opponents, the Home Secretary added that she would only have the power to extend the questioning time on an investigation-by-investigation basis, and for a 30-day period, if police specifically requested it during major anti-terror inquiries.
She added that every such extension granted would then be put before MPs for approval within 30 days of the decision, introducing an unprecedented element of parliamentary control over and debate about the conduct of fast-moving security operations.
However, Mr Brown faces a huge battle to win over opposition parties and his own backbenchers over the plans.
The current limit of 28 days was itself a compromise after a failed attempt to increase the maximum detention limit to 90 days led to Tony Blair’s first ever defeat in the Commons in November 2005. Today, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have already pledged to oppose them when they are put before MPs.
Releasing her proposals today, Ms Smith said: "All of us can agree that, if a higher limit than 28 days is needed because of exceptional operational reasons, then such powers must not be used rashly or routinely.
"The purpose of this paper is therefore to set out the case for making it possible to go beyond 28 days, but only where this is exceptionally required and then only for a strictly limited period of time.
"Such powers should only be used where there is a clear operational need related to a particular operation or investigation and should be supported by strong parliamentary and judicial safeguards.
"I believe this approach is significantly different from the one originally proposed by Government and that it balances the need to protect the public by extending the limit when and where there is a compelling operational need against any risk of introducing blanket powers."
The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and civil liberties groups, however, responded saying that there was no evidence that any extension was needed, and accusing ministers of abandoning attempts to seek consensus on the issue.
Central to the Tories' case is that the Government already has the power necessary to deal with terrorist suspects, and does not need further legislation. Under the Civil Contingencies Act, supported by the Conservatives, the Home Secretary already has emergency powers -allowing suspects to be held for a 30-day period above the current 28 days.
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, 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. They have lost the argument to further extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days again and again."
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, also indicated his party would oppose measures to extend the limit, saying: "Twenty-eight days is already the longest period in any democratic jurisdiction in the world. Where on earth then is the evidence from the government that this further extension is necessary?"
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, also opposed the plans, accusing the government was playing politics with security. "I for one still thought we were part of a constructive and friendly and ongoing process and then yesterday evening the process had stopped. "My interpretation of that being consensus is not actually sought."
As well as suffering a Parliamentary defeat on the matter under the leadership of Mr Blair, the Government's attempts to extend the pre-charge detention limit have run into numerous problems in the last few months.
Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions, and Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, have both questioned the extension.
In the most embarrassing development for the Government, Mr Brown's own security minister, Admiral Lord West of Spithead last month told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he was not yet "fully convinced" of the need to raise the 28-day limit.
Barely an hour later, after a meeting with the Prime Minister, he emerged from No 10 with his position reversed, telling reporters: "My feeling is, yes, we need more than 28 days," he told reporters.
"I personally absolutely believe that within the next two to three years, we will require more than that for one of these complex plots. So I am convinced that’s the case, but it is very difficult because there is a civil liberties issue," he said.
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
See the best entries in this year's competition
Your brain is capable of more than you might think...
An interactive preview of the brand new For Your Eyes Only exhibition
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers

Love Sudoku? Play our brand new interactive game: with added functionality and daily prizes

Are you irritable when you return from work? Drained of emotion? You could be suffering from boreout
Prepare for some shock and awe, petrol lovers. Despite the greens trying to wipe it out, the car is about to offer us the most exciting year ever
We've trawled the brochures and websites to find this summer’s best holidays for every taste and budget

A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests


Overseas contacts and local business information

2002/02
£59,995
The Midlands
2008/08
£169,950
Scotland
2007/57
£35,000
South East England
Great car insurance deals online
Circa £82,000 per annum
Birmingham Women's Hospital
Birmingham
To £28k
Barclaycard
Various (outside London)
£
Up to £66,000 per annum
Hertfordshire County Council
South East
To £38k
Barclaycard
Northampton/Liverpool
2 Bathrooms, Balcony and Garden
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Apts From £249,950
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
Explore mystical Jordan
From £1030 for 7nts 4*
to USA's Most Cosmopolitan City; San Francisco!
£POA
Book Now for Winter 08/09 and Get 10% off!
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Search globrix.com to buy or rent UK property.
© Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Government to use anti terrorism laws to combat petrol price increase demonstations. WAKE UP .
TERRY , RADSTOCK, ENGLAND
What if Parliament is in recess? What do you do - recall it? An emergency that warrants the recall of Parliament surely will already be over the threshold for a national emergency.
Would MPs be given a free vote? If not I see no point in the promise to put the matter before MPs. Anyway, MPs' job is to debate laws, not make decisions on internment of individuals.
I may not be frightened of terrorists, but I do worry about the long-term consequences of giving politicians discretion to detain people without charge. I might trust the current bunch not to abuse it, but do we really want to put that weapon in the hands of government?
James, Hong Kong, China
Close 15 womens prisons because they a full of innocent victims of circumstance. A weak home secretary, luck at the OED for the meaning of the word "tough."
steve, chester, cheshire
It's not the police or government that require 90 or 56 or 28 or 42 days, it's us the general public in order to swallow their incredulities!
tim buckley, brighton, uk
This is doing exactly what it is intended to do - draw media attention away from the donor scandals.
Douglas, kirkintilloch,
Politicking for politickings sake! This has nothing to do with public safety but lots to do with a Brown soundbite sometime in the future that the opposition parties have not supported New Labour in the war on terrorism. The dysfunctional running of the Home office by this administration in recent years having plumbed new depths of under achievement in most departments certainly has a lot of ground to cover just to recoup a shred of crediblity and pursuing this issue would seemingly come at the bottom of a long list of higher priorities.
philip, Ipswich,
It is proposed that extension granted would then be put before MPs for approval within 30 days of the decision. That sounds very much like a sound bite than a means to safeguard individual liberty. If the extension is 14 days beyond the existing 28 days and the decision is put before MPs after the 2nd extension timetable - what does she expect the MPs to do if they object to the decision.
It sounds more like somthing whip up by the spin doctors than introducing an unprecedented element of parliamentary control.
dschoy, london,
The government has a fundamental problem on this. Last year, both Tony Blair and Ian Blair claimed that it was "vital" and "essential" that the police had 90 days. Nothing less would do if they were to protect us properly from terrorism , we were told . For that reason the PM refused to compromise (even though he might arguably have got through a smaller increase on 28 days had he not stubbornly insisted on his 'all or nothing' stance).
Now the new home secretary tells us that 42 days is adequate but necessary to ensure national security. So what happened to the claims that 90 days was so ''vital'' ? Is the government now admitting it got it wrong ? And iIf so, why should we now believe them that 42 days is essential?
It's hard not to conclude that this pluck-a-number-out-of-thin-air approach is nothing to do with security and everything to do with political posturing.
nigel w, Kent,
I'm going to echo Arthur's sentiment from further down, that terrorism is unimportant. In this case, both my gut feelings and the statistics agree, in that I know I'm far more likely to get killed in a road accident, or murdered in a botched mugging, than to be killed by a terrorist. I'd have to be a true coward to be shaking in my boots about terrorism as much as our current government does.
Sorry, but to do something as drastic as long term detention, the Labour party is going to need a more important reason than terrorism.
Richard, Cambridge,
Nothing doing. I hope the government gets defeated on this one.
Miland Joshi, Birmingham,
What on earth are we doing. Opening terrist camps when sending them back is all we have to do. If the EU wont then lets leave that corrupt body, we don't need it. 95% of the EU Budged is missing. No I see this government needing these camps for British people who will be on the streets shortly if they don't give us a Referendum and an Election. I am only repeating something that hundreds or thousands now are saying in chat rooms.
The PEOPLE DO NOT WAN'T EUROPE. DO NOT SIGN THE TREATY?CONSTITUTION
John Donaldson, Farnborough, Hampshire
Obviously judges are better able to decide these matters than MPs and peers. Judges have more knowledge, they are less likely to panic, they are much more to be trusted with sensitive information and have no interest in trying to lever some political advantage from a case or appearing on the telly.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
When I leave my house in the morning, terrorism is not the top of my worry list.
I find it insulting that mp's seem to think that terrorism is the biggest worry this country has. I worry far more about my car being in the same condition I left it in, and that my home will have it's doors and windows still closed when I get home, and that I will have a job at the end of the month to pay my mortgage with, and that I can afford to fill my car with petrol to get me to work.
Terrorism is infact, several rungs down the ladder of concern for me.
Thanks Mr. Brown.
Arthur, Newcastle,