Aspects of Gordon Brown's new counter-terrorism drive have come in for sharp criticism today as MPs and peers challenged his desire to move beyond the 28 days' pre-charge detention maximum and denounced the renewal of control orders as "Kafka-esque".
Westminster's Joint Committee on Human Rights also insisted that the high security unit at London's Paddington Green police station, where terror suspects are held, was inadequate and needed to be improved "immediately" and replaced "as soon as possible" with facilities more suitable in today's climate of an enhanced terror threat.
In a report, the MPs and peers made clear they were still not convinced about holding terror suspects beyond 28 days and asked what safeguards there would be if the period of pre-charge detention were extended.
Last week, the Prime Minister flagged up the option of doubling it to 56 days.
At present, the courts have to consider whether further detention is required to preserve evidence and whether the investigation is being conducted effectively and quickly.
However, the committee noted that judges were not allowed to ask the key question - whether there were reasonable grounds for believing a person had committed a terrorist offence in the first place.
"Human rights law requires the state to protect us all from the consequences of terrorism and violent crime," said Labour MP Andrew Dismore, the committee chairman.
"While we welcome the progress being made on the use of intercept evidence and post-charge questioning, as ever the devil is in the detail. Where is the supporting evidence to extend the detention period?
"To be removed from your home, your family, your job for 28 days, never mind longer, has a serious impact on your life. We have to be absolutely sure of the need for this.
"As far as we've heard there's not yet been a case where 28 days was inadequate. This is being proposed on the possibility that it might be in future," he said.
The committee also criticised the procedure for renewal of control orders, some of which have been quashed by the High Court as amounting to "indefinite detention without trial".
It said the system, which involved secret hearings where the control order subject was not present and might never be allowed to hear much or any of the evidence against him or her, was "far removed from anything we would consider to be a fair procedure".
"No right-minded person would accept as fair the idea of a court in which you are not allowed to hear the evidence against you or defend yourself effectively or speak to your lawyer about the issues and where the case against you does not have to be fully proven," said Mr Dismore.
"This is a process that is offensive both to the basic principles of natural justice as we know it and to British ideas of fair play."
