Proposals by British prime minister-elect Gordon Brown to beef up security laws, among them a further extension of detention without charge, were criticised today by a rights group but welcomed by judicial figures.
Details of the plans, including allowing phone tap evidence in court and extending detention without charge to 90 days from 28, were carried widely in Sunday newspapers.
Mr Brown, who will take over from Tony Blair on June 27th after a decade as chancellor, aims to show he will be as tough on terrorism as his predecessor.
He also wants to end the ban on police questioning a suspect after charging and to make terrorism an aggravating factor in sentencing, handing judges greater powers.
The latter would be subject to judicial oversight to ensure that it is correctly and sparingly used.
"We really welcome some of these measures, and have proposed some of them ourselves," Shami Chakrabarti, director of rights group Liberty, told BBC television.
But she criticised the planned extension of the time police can hold suspects without charging them.
"Liberty has proposed the use of phone-tap evidence and post-charge questioning as proportionate alternatives to extending pre-charge detention, not in addition to it," Ms Chakrabarti said.
"Twenty-eight days is already the longest period to hold a person without charge in the free world. If you go beyond 28 days it is internment."
Lord Carlile, independent reviewer of Britain's anti-terrorism legislation, unreservedly welcomed the proposals.
"I do think it is time for the political parties to get together and to try to reach a consensus with the Government, so we can move forward on terrorism legislation on the basis of fitness for purpose," he said.
The police asked for the period of detention without charge to be extended to 90 days from 14 following the July 7th London transport suicide bombings in 2005.
But when Mr Blair tried to push the change through parliament he met a revolt from within his own party and was forced to compromise on 28 days.
There are also divided views on whether phone tap evidence should be admissible in court, with security services fearing that full disclosure could compromise their methods.