HC Deb 28 November 1974 vol 882 cc919-20
Mr. Stallard

I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 9, line 4, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.

The Chairman

With this we are to take the following amendments: No. 63, in page 9, line 11, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.

No. 64, in page 9, line 17, leave out six' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Stallard

A theme which has run through almost every speech in the debates on the Bill—certainly through every speech from the Labour side—has been a reluctance to accept any erosion of civil liberties for any length of time. It was evident from the Home Secretary's speech that he was determined that any erosion of our civil liberties would be for the shortest period possible. It is in that light that I regard six months as too long. There are a number of precedents where six months has proved far too long for this type of legislation bearing in mind the sort of things that can happen in that period.

Why cannot the six months be cut to three months? Some of the amendments and modifications that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier could quite easily be within the three-month period.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the amendment even at this hour. I am sure that he is wrong and I shall be glad to tell him why. Part of the reason is that I originally thought that the period should be three months and I considered whether the period should or should not be of that duration. I was totally persuaded that three months would be far too short. There can be no question of stopping this legislation after three months or of reviewing it after only three months' operation. I am sure that if we changed it to three months I should automatically have to come back and ask for it to be renewed by order. Once we do that we get into the habit of it going on even longer. If we look at the legislation after six months we should avoid getting into the habit of renewing it too easily.

Mr. Stallard

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham

At the end of six months if, as I expect, the House decides that it is right that powers like these need to be continued, there will be a very strong case for doing so not by order, although it will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but by a further statute.

We have taken a whole day of Parliamentary time to pass the Bill through the House, but it has not been a waste of time. By far the most valuable time has been the Committee stage rather than Second Reading.

It is quite clear that many of the provisions will need second thoughts in the course of six months. If at the end of that period the provisions, or some of them, are proposed to be continued by order we shall only be able to pass or defeat that motion and not amend it. I hope therefore that the Government will assume that at the end of six months, if the powers are to be continued they will have to set aside one day of parliamentary time to go through the process again.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I give no promise about my hon. Friend's point, but I take seriously what he said and accept some of the arguments he put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to