Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Britain's House of Lords voted against government plans to let police hold terrorist suspects for up to 42 days without charge, putting at risk a key part Prime Minister Gordon Brown's anti-terrorism legislation.

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties voted against the extension in the Lords, the upper, unelected chamber of Parliament, alongside lawmakers attached to no party. They voted 309-118 against the Labour government and in favor of an amendment to legislation keeping the current 28 day limit.

Brown needed the help of a Northern Irish party to clear the proposal in the lower House of Commons in June after members of his Labour Party rebelled. He may now opt to abandon the plan rather than risk another Parliament defeat.

``Six months ago this was a matter of paramount importance, but not any more,'' Mark Wickham-Jones, a professor of politics at Bristol University, said in an interview. ``Time has reduced its saliency. The government is now much more focused on tackling problems in the economy.''

The proposed extension from the current 28 days is part of the Counter-Terrorism Bill. As an amending chamber, the House of Lords has no authority to kill off the bill.

The defeat today embarrasses Brown and leaves the future of the 42-day plan in peril. At a time when the government is grappling with the financial crisis, Brown would risk undermining a political consensus on the bank rescue plan by shifting his focus to terrorism.

Complexity

Ministers argue that the increasing complexities of terrorism cases mean the police need longer to examine them. They have cited an alleged 2006 plot to bomb airliners as proof of the case for extra time, saying investigators were close to releasing the suspects because of the current 28-day limit.

``If the legislation is rejected and the government and experts are right, it could mean dangerous terrorists are at risk of committing atrocities,'' Counter Terrorism Minister Alan West told lawmakers.

Critics say the detention period proposed is a threat to civil liberties.

``It's unnecessary,'' Geoffrey Dear, an independent peer in the Lords who put forward the amendment opposing the extension, said in an interview. ``The current law is sufficient in any case. No other country seems to want to follow our line and what is this going to do to our civil and legal rights?''

No party holds a majority in the Lords, which must agree with the rules before they can become law. The upper chamber will consider amendments to other parts of the bill before returning it to the House of Commons within the next few weeks.

Writers' Concerns

Forty-two British writers attacked the extension plans today. Organized by civil rights pressure group Liberty, contributors to the Web site 42writers.com include novelists Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Julian Barnes, Ian Rankin and philosopher Alain de Botton.

Former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, a Labour lawmaker in the Lords, today repeated his claim that the 42-day provision in the bill is ``pernicious'' and ``dangerous.''

``I regard it as not only unnecessary but also counter- productive, and we should fight to protect the liberties the terrorists would take from us, not destroy them ourselves,'' Goldsmith wrote in today's Guardian newspaper.

``This debate is an unhelpful distraction,'' Pauline Neville-Jones, the opposition Conservative spokeswoman on counter-terrorism and a former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee. ``It distracts us at a time when there are more pressing issues that we should be concentrating our attention on -- the economy, for one.''

Norman Tebbit, also a Conservative lawmaker, whose wife was left disabled by the 1984 Provisional Irish Republican Army bomb aimed at former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, said he would be voting in the government's favor.

`Dilemma'

``Think of the dilemma if the government is denied these powers, but at some time in the future a Conservative administration concludes that it needs them,'' Tebbit told lawmakers.

A survey for Ipsos Mori published yesterday asked a sample of lawmakers in the Commons whether if the Lords reject the plans they should be pushed through anyway.

Of the 125 lawmakers questioned between June 9 to July 18, 40 percent said the plans should not be pushed through, 32 percent said they should, while 25 percent refused to answer. Responses were weighted to reflect the sample.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kitty Donaldson in London at kdonaldson1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: October 13, 2008 13:55 EDT