A Foreign Office dossier published today to back up the Government’s case for new anti-terror laws appears to have backfired.

The 40-page study compares anti-terror laws and practices in seven European countries, the US, Canada and Australia, looking particularly at how long suspects can be held before charges are brought.

The Home Office wants to increase the maximum period that suspects can be held in the UK from 14 days to three months. Today however, officials were forced to acknowledge that none of the other countries surveyed had powers to detain suspects for that long.

The dossier showed, for example, that the maximum detention period in Australia is 168 hours - a week. In France the maximum is a mere four days before a charge is brought, and in Spain 13 days, although suspects in both countries can then be held for up to four years before trial.

Officials sought to make light of the differences, saying that there was no direct comparison, because in Britain - unlike elsewhere - the police can no longer question a suspect once they had been charged.

"It is apples and pears," one Foreign Office official said. "The difference in the UK is that once the 14-day period is exceeded the barrier comes down and the police can no longer question somebody once they have been charged.

"That is not the case in France or Spain, where the person leading the investigation is an investigating magistrate. It is very difficult to make comparisons because the systems are different."

But opposition parties said that the research had made the Home Office's plans look too draconian. The Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This paper actually undermines the Government’s case.

"Keeping suspects in police detention for three months would be radically out of step with our European and Commonwealth partners. Where other countries hold suspects for long periods there are safeguards in the form of an independent judge who decides if there is a case to answer.

"Under the Government’s plans judges will simply rubber stamp any police request for more time."

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: "All this dossier shows is that the case for detention without trial for 90 days still has not been made.

"If the Government wants to look abroad they really would do far better to follow the good and up to date example of our international partners by actually deporting extremists and allowing the use of intercept evidence in terror trials."

Hazel Blears, a Home Office minister, defended the Government's plans. She said: "I think it would be unfair to make direct comparisons between our legal system and other legal systems.

"The document is useful in showing us an illustration of how different countries approach these difficult issues but it’s then not fair to say our police are going to have draconian powers."

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has said that he is considering changing the law so that suspects can be questioned by police after charges have been brought. Today Michael Howard, the Tory leader, suggested that this might be a better way forward than a 90 day detention without trial.

Mr Straw's research paper also analyses how other countries deal with deporting foreign terror suspects.

A senior Foreign Office official warned that British courts may have to change the way they interpret human rights law to make it easier for Britain to deport in the light of the current terrorist threat.

"What we are seeing is the circumstances it was drawn up to address 50 years ago, and not the circumstances we face now in respect of international terrorism," the official said.

"Therefore the way in which the convention [European Convention on Human Rights] is interpreted should be looked at to see if that should be changed. While nobody is saying we should not weigh extremely carefully the risk of ill treatment, you also have to take into account against the rights of the minority who might be accused justly or unjustly of terrorism, the rights of the great majority not to be blown up in a Tube carriage."

He said the Government would not seek to deport somebody where there was a "serious risk" that they could face ill treatment or torture. Instead he said ministers’ approach was to seek agreement with countries such as Algeria and Jordan that anyone returning there would not be ill treated.

This approach has been strongly criticised by human rights organisations, who say such assurances from countries where there is a record of torture are worthless.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, the civil rights group, said: "Things have come to a pretty pass when the country that once defined justice for the rest of world seeks to win a race to the bottom in fair trial standards."

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Times Christmas appeal: Letter from the Editor
• Conferences — what a waste of money
• Schools supremo learns a painful lesson