The Government scraped through a vote on their plans to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge by just nine votes.

The Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the proposal. Speaking during day two of report stage debate on the Counter-Terrorism Bill, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Huhne led the Liberal Democrats’ attack. He argued that the proposals were illiberal and counterproductive. Mr Huhne noted that such legislation risks alienating the very communities whose help is needed in the fight against terrorism.

Mr Huhne highlighted the potential affect that the Government’s proposed legislation could have on innocent members of the public. He began by explaining why the powers of executive detention contained in the Bill are so serious. He said:

“They are not powers that apply just to other people; they are powers that could apply to any one of us here today. We could be arrested on our way home, in a case of mistaken identity, and locked up - if the Government have their way - not for one day or seven days, but for six weeks. What would a person’s employer think? What would their family think? Surely, they might say, the police could not really detain someone without some pretty clear evidence, using powers under a terrorism Act. As every street gossip will tell you, there is no smoke without fire.”

Mr Huhne went on to debunk Government’s misguided arguments for extending the period of pre-charge detention. He noted:

“It has been said that it might be necessary to read material equivalent to one third of the contents of the US Library of Congress within the proposed legal limit of 42 days. If so, that would require 240,000 police officers working eight-hour shifts - a total equivalent to all the police officers in this country, plus 100,000 others on loan from a friendly neighbour.”

“In fact, the tools available to the police have also increased in power so that sense can be made of large amounts of data. Clearly, search engines are available to others, as well as to Members of this House. Moreover, the Government do not seem to take the problem too seriously: they legislated in 2000 to make it an offence to withhold data encryption keys, but that offence did not come into force until 2007. So much for the sense of urgency.”

Mr Huhne compared Britain’s draconian approach to pre-charge detention with that of Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand, all of which have significantly lower limits on the period of detention without charge. He pointed out that “Canada retains a traditional 24-hour detention period without charge.”

The Government’s introduction of new clauses, designed to act as safeguards against the unnecessary use of pre-charge detention, were also attacked by Mr Huhne. He said:

“This could almost be regarded as the “Tongan clause” as it would allow any ‘grave exceptional terrorist threat’ in Tonga to trigger the extension by the Home Secretary of the period of detention without charge from 28 days to 42 days. That is not exactly the sort of safeguard this Parliament is used to having in connection with a matter involving fundamental freedoms.”

Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell also contributed to the debate. He warned of the long-term impact of the proposed legislation arguing that, “once freedoms of the kind that we are debating are removed or even diminished, they are not easily recovered.” The Government’s proposed measurers, he argued, remove fundamental freedoms and personal liberties.

Liberal Democrat MP David Heath spoke during the debate, further criticising the Government’s supposed ‘safeguards’. He said, “I see no justification for what the Home Secretary has presented as a safeguard - the interpolation of Parliament into a judicial process. It is a most extraordinary proposition that this House should be empanelled as a sort of grand jury.”

Despite cross-party condemnation of the Bill, it was passed with 315 votes to 306, a majority of just 9. 36 rebel Labour MPs voted, against the Bill. [Click here to read the voting record in full]

The Bill now passes to The House of Lords where the Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the Government’s proposals.