Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time)

HC Deb 23 January 1989 vol 145 cc692-742 3.32 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

There has often been a sense of routine about the timetable motions that I and my predecessors from both sides of the House have introduced in the past. They have usually been moved because the Opposition of the day had been making rather too enthusiastic a use of a legitimate weapon—time—while the Government of the day, in the end, were entitled to get their business. Barring one or two occasions, such as the famous one in July 1976, the debates have followed a fairly standard pattern, with the Leader of the House explaining how reasonable the Government were being, and his opposite number claiming that the guillotine motion heralded the imminent arrival of a police state.

Today, however, is not one of those occasions. Since tabling this motion, further discussions have taken place through the usual channels, but before I discuss that, I wish to remind the House that today we are dealing with a Bill which, if not enacted by a specific date, will have repercussions extending considerably beyond an embarrassment to the Government at suffering delay to their programme, or a temporary boost in morale for the Opposition.

As the House knows, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 expires on 21 March this year. It is essential, if our society is to have adequate means with which to fight terrorism, that the current Bill receives Royal Assent on or before that date, and comes into force on 22 March.

If the Bill does not come into force on that date, arrest and detention powers and the power of exclusion will be lost, both of which would have extremely damaging consequences. Police throughout the United Kingdom would be without the power to arrest a person on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism, and would have to wait until they had a reasonable suspicion of a particular offence. By that time it may be too late to prevent acts of terrorism occurring. The prevention of terrorism is a prime aim of the Bill.

Furthermore, if the Bill is not enacted in time, not only would the people currently excluded under the 1984 Act be able to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland freely, but there would be no power for the Secretary of State to exclude anybody now thought to be involved in acts of Northern Irish terrorism. Active terrorists could move freely about the country to prepare and commit further atrocities. Moreover, if the current powers of proscription were lost, the IRA could parade through the streets of Britain, recruit members openly, and even raise funds in public. There would thus be severe consequences, if the Bill were to fall behind its timetable.

The constraint on time for the Bill means that it must finish its passage through this House by the end of this month, so as to allow another place a proper amount of time for its consideration of the Bill. I recognise that this is a tight timetable, but nevertheless it was originally possible through the usual channels to negotiate an agreement on how the Bill should be discussed in Committee. The latest confirmation of the agreement was made through the usual channels on the morning of 10 January, but during the afternoon sitting of the Committee the Opposition took a different view, giving as the reason the Government's reaction to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. That had been announced by the Home Secretary to the Committee more than two weeks previously on 22 December and confirmed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in a letter to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 9 January.

The Brogan judgment was extensively discussed at the sittings following the Christmas recess when my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State advised the Committee that there was little prospect of the Government's final response being available before the Bill was through Parliament. That was an honest and realistic appraisal of the position. It was intended to be helpful to the work of the Committee by eliminating any uncertainty about the timing of any proposals we might want to bring forward.

Earlier in Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield had referred to the Opposition's aim of keeping to a schedule that facilitates the timetable of the Bill that we know the Government must meet"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 December 1988, c. 236.] By 12 January he was saying that the Opposition could no longer co-operate on a timetable"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 January 1989, c. 439] and to underline that, was giving the Committee a lengthy homily on airport security, together with an anecdote of how he once wind-surfed from Majorca to France. Since then there have been extensive discussions through the usual channels and I shall listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to see whether the Opposition find that they can co-operate with the Government on this timetable motion. I very much hope that we shall be able to agree to it without a Division.

So small a margin for flexibility, however, remains with this Bill, that I still consider the timetable motion vital. As the House will remember, there was a variety of opinions, both for and against the Bill, expressed on Second Reading and a substantial minority of the Opposition voted against it. I have every faith in the word of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but in view of the formidable delaying powers of his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which we witnessed recently, I should sleep more easily if I had the insurance policy of a timetable for this Bill.

The Committee has now sat for about 52 hours and has discussed 25 clauses. There are two clauses remaining, in addition to five new clauses tabled by the Labour party.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar)

Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Wakeham

I was about to refer to the hon. Lady and I shall finish what I was to say before she intervenes.

The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) helpfully stated in Committee that by the time clause 17 had been reached, the meat of the Bill would have been dealt with.

Ms. Mowlam

I would hate the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. It is not a question of five new clauses being left to be debated, having been put down by the Opposition. We have debated nearly all of them. Only two new clauses are left, which we could have finished debating if Conservative Members had been prepared to sit late last Thursday. They were not, so we are having to go through all this now. We should blame the inefficiency and incompetence of Conservative Members, rather than hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr. Wakeham

That, I think, is a recommendation for the timetable motion, because there is adequate time to discuss those two clauses.

What the hon. Lady said in Committee is now the case, and in view of that I do not think that there can be much exception to the terms of my motion, which would allow another full day, up to 11 pm, in Committee tomorrow, followed by a full day for the remaining stages.

I said that this was not a normal timetable motion. To fail to get the Bill on the statute book by 22 March would leave the country without adequate defences against terrorism. Recent events, from Lockerbie to the discovery of arms and explosives in Battersea, should have convinced hon. Members that our society is still gravely threatened, as much as it was when the Labour party passed the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in 1974 and 1976. To defeat the motion would make it impossible to achieve Royal Assent by the necessary deadline, and would enormously weaken our ability to prevent terrorism. That is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to vote to maintain our weapons against those who seek to destroy both our democracy and many of our people, and to join me in the Aye Lobby in support of the motion.

3.40 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

As the Leader of the House has said, this is an extraordinary guillotine motion. It asks us to curtail debate tomorrow on the Committee stage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, when that Committee stage would have ended last Thursday if only the Government had let it. I suggest that it is a case of closing the stable door to stop the horse from getting into the stable.

Of course, the guillotine motion does not stop there. It is designed to curtail debate on Report and Third Reading, so that the Act can in operation by 22 March when the existing law expires. I am afraid that, if the Leader of the House is bothered about the tight timetable that he faces and wants to find a culprit, he need look no further than have known since 1984 that the existing law would run out on 22 March this year. They could have introduced the Bill in the last Session. After all, there was plenty of time: the last Session dealt with fewer Government Bills than the first Session of any Parliament since the war.

But the Government did not bother. Instead, they decided to introduce the Bill in this Session. That did not leave much time for it to be considered properly because the Session started so late, the Queen's Speech being one of the latest on record. That was because the previous Session dragged on for far longer than usual—despite, as I have said, being faced with the smallest amount of legislation on record. It was the Government who gave themselves so little time to get the Bill through all its stages.

The problem has been made much worse by the Government's own failure to decide how to respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. The court decided that part of the present law that we are being asked to re-enact is contrary to the European convention on human rights—that is, that this country is breaking the law. Admittedly, that judgment was made just before the present Bill was published, but the Commission had held the present position to be incompatible with the European convention as long ago as May 1987.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and I am making a genuine inquiry. He said that if we did not abide by a recommendation by the European Court of Human Rights we were breaking the law. What law are we breaking? Do we not make the laws ourselves here?

Mr. Dobson

Yes, and one of the laws that we have undertaken is to obey and fall in line with the European convention on human rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, we have. That is why, if we are not going to do so, we need to derogate formally from it. But the Government appear to do no contingency planning. They seem to have ignored the likelihood of the court upholding the Commission's views, because the records of—admittedly—successive British Governments before the European Court of Human Rights is that we lose more cases than we win. The Government even ignored the promptings of Lord Colville of Culross, when he reported to them in December 1987 on the working of the Act. He suggested that the Government, in preparing the new Bill, should take into account what he mildly described as the possibility of the court upholding the opinion of the Commission.

The Government appear to have done nothing of the sort. Instead, the court's decision seems to have taken them by surprise. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that he would give the Government's response to the court's decision before the Bill left the Commons. He indicated that the Government's proposals would be in time to be debated in Committee. He then went to the Committee and said that Britain would derogate from the court decision—that is, not comply with it—until he had managed to sort out some solution. After Christmas it was made clear that derogation would prevail for longer than had been originally indicated.

Therefore, today, when the Government are seeking to curtail further debate on the Bill, we do not know what the Government are asking the House to do. Are they saying, "Pass the Bill as it is and then, after it becomes law, we will amend it to comply with the European court ruling", or, on the other hand, are they saying, "Pass the Bill as it is, because we have no intention of complying with the court ruling"? We know, however, that the Government propose to curtail debate on either alternative. Any suggestion that a slight extension of this guillotine motion today might permit the necessary discussion seems to us to be absurd. If we are to obtain from the Government a proposition that might meet the requirements of the European court ruling, it certainly merits longer discussion than would be provided for under this guillotine motion.

We say, too, that for the Government to derogate from the court ruling is a most serious development. To do so, the Government must claim to the Council of Europe that the present situation in this country was a public emergency threatening the life of the nation"—an emergency akin to a time of war.

Whatever is the situation in Northern Ireland, to assert that the IRA or any other of the terrorist groups pose a threat to the life of this nation as a whole is to attribute to those murdering psychopaths a significance that they do not deserve, but in which they themselves revel. It would accord to those who shoot to kill and bomb to maim a status that their actions alone will never achieve—a threat to the life of this nation. Their bombing does not do that. A mature democracy, which has survived far worse dangers than any posed by the IRA, can surely survive what it is threatening.

Mr. Marlow

The hon. Gentleman is giving a lot of importance to the European Court of Human Rights. Will the hon. Gentleman say how the goings on in that court can be the laws of this land? At what stage did Parliament enact anything that obliges us to follow that? When have Members of Parliament debated it? How is it part of the law of this country? When was the country consulted as to whether we should be obliged to follow those particular—

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Ask the Prime Minister. She decided that.

Mr. Dobson

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to obtain the details, he had better rush off to the Library. This country has undertaken to abide by the European convention on human rights. If we do not accept that court ruling, we shall have formally to say that we are not complying with it. The hon. Gentleman may not like that situation, but that is the situation which prevails.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

It might be as well to recognise at this stage that a British Government played a central role in setting up the European Court of Human Rights. Not only that, they played a central role in drawing up the European convention under which it has been found that this Government are guilty, because of the way in which they are detaining people.

Mr. Dobson

It has always been my understanding that it was a great source of pride that this country was the first signatory to the European convention on human rights, which is all the more reason for us to attempt to uphold it at all times.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, when we enter into international agreements. they are invariably done under preogative power. By and large, both sides of the House have accepted the right of the Executive to enter into those agreements on behalf of the nation as a whole. Therefore, when they are entered into, the House wants to support them. It is right that the House could take it back, but, by and large, we thought that this was a proper area into which executive government, on behalf of us all, could enter.

Mr. Dobson

I thank the hon. Member (Mr. Shepherd) for his assistance.

Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is correct, we should have incorporated the European convention into our municipal law? In those circumstances it would have served to bind this country and all persons within it until Parliament took a decision to make a change. As we have maintained that convention as an international treaty only, it is open to Her Majesty's Government to derogate from it, and there is nothing disgraceful in so doing.

Mr. Dobson

The European convention on human rights specifically provides for the "high contracting parties", the Governments who have signed it, to derogate from it if they wish, but I shall consider the significance of that in a moment.

The issue of derogation brings me to the difference between our response to terrorism and that of the Government. Everybody recognises that everyone has a duty to prevent terrorists securing their objectives. It is from that desire to deny terrorists their objectives, however, that our dilemma, in a democratic country, stems. Shootings or explosions may be the immediate object of a terrorist attack, but that is not the end of the story. The death or destruction directly caused by a terrorist is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. What the terrorist wants to do against a democratic society is to bring about a reaction from those in authority which reduces the openness of that society, undermines its normal democratic values and casts doubt on its normal Judicial processes.

The terrorist also seeks a form of prestige—the prestige of being acknowledged as an extremely dangerous threat. We must bear in mind those long-term objectives of terrorists when we decide how to respond to their acts. Whatever benefits the supporters of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 claim for it, there is no doubt that that law reduces the openness of our society and undermines our normal democratic procedures.

To announce to the world that the very life of our nation is at risk certainly accords the IRA and other groups the loathsome privilege of being acknowledged as a very dangerous threat. We believe that that is too high a price to pay. We also believe that, although our democratic instruments and institutions may inhibit our ability, as a country, to take direct, immediate and deadly action against terrorists, they are also a strength and a source of national pride. I remind the House, as I have done before, that although dictatorships have been undermined by terrorist methods in modern times, no democracy has fallen to terrorists. The strength of democracies may be less apparent, but they are deeper and more lasting.

Although we support the new proposals aimed to reduce the funds to which terrorists have access, we oppose the rest of the Bill. Its provisions for detention breach the European convention on human rights. They invade civil liberties and alienate large numbers of otherwise law-abiding people. The exclusion provisions amount to a system of internal exile, which Lord Colville, in his review of the workings of the Act, felt did more harm than good.

The right of the Executive to bar people from a part of their country without judicial interference bears an uncanny resemblance to provisions in countries whose human rights records are rightly criticised by both sides of the House. My objections, however, go further than that. The situation in Northern Ireland poses terrible problems for the people living there, for the people of England, Scotland and Wales, for the Government, for the police and security forces and for the institutions of democracy.

Individual measures which may seem justified in response to the threat of terrorism can, taken together, amount to a threat to our democratic institutions. Our sensitivity to incursions against our liberties becomes literally calloused by the repetition of horrifying events and our responses to them. We become used to things that, 20 years ago, were unthinkable anywhere in this land—trials without juries, detention for seven days without redress, internal exile, the abolition of the right to silence, newspapers supporting the shooting of unarmed people and even the Prime Minister announcing that suspects are guilty. Each of those is an understandable response to the horrors of terrorism, but taken together they amount to an erosion of all that our country has fought and argued for throughout the 20th century.

What is more important—I address this remark to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)—they damage our reputation abroad in a way which makes the fight against terrorism harder. Whatever one's point of view on the merits of the Patrick Ryan case, it demonstrated our dependence on the Governments of other countries. It demonstrated that our reputation for good or ill affects their judgments and their willingness to co-operate with us. Clearly, the maintenance of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and a permanent derogation from the provisions of the European convention of human rights will undermine and add doubts to the willingness of other European Governments to assist us in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, when the Labour party was in power, it ever derogated from the European convention on human rights, if it did so, why and in what circumstances?

Mr. Dobson

Various Governments, including Labour Governments, have done so in the past. The hon. Gentleman appears not to know that the derogation has never applied to England, Scotland or Wales. In some cases it applied to Northern Ireland and in previous cases to colonial territories during states of emergency. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.

If I lived in Northern Ireland, I might think that what is happening there was a threat to the life of that part of the nation, but the Opposition believe that the threats or the actions of the IRA ought not to be portrayed to its advantage as a threat to the life of the nation. That is why we believe that, on balance, the provisions of the Bill will do more harm than good. That is why we oppose the Bill and the guillotine.

3.57 pm

Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)

I shall support the motion as briefly as I can. Strictly speaking, this afternoon we are debating what we know formally as the timetable motion, but which most of us call the guillotine motion. It is an odd title. When I was talking to some of the more Right-wing members of my constituency party during the weekend and I told them that I had to get back to London promptly to speak in support of the guillotine in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the reaction of a constituent who is not particularly supportive of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in these matters was, "At last the Government have got it right in dealing with the affairs of Northern Ireland."

The debate is important in itself and for the attitudes, beliefs and feelings which it exposes in the Opposition. Despite all the images that they present on television, the Opposition remain the party of the past. Rather like the Bourbon kings and queens, they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. I enjoyed tremendously the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) making it absolutely clear to the House that the Opposition totally oppose the Bill.

The Labour party proclaims in ringing tones that it wants to defeat the evil of terrorism, yet it consistently opposes, fights and rejects the very measures which have a chance of doing just that. Labour Members resent it tremendously—as they did in Committee—when we justifiably remind them that back in the 1970s a Labour Government, supported by what was then a loyal Conservative Opposition, first enacted an anti-terrorism Bill. The Opposition's reaction then was in marked contrast to their reaction today. Their reaction now is irresponsible. They believe in freedom of opposition. Long may the Labour party adopt that policy of irresponsibility and freedom of opposition. It says that there is no need for measures such as this, yet it fails to accept that, sadly, in the last 10 years terrorism has got worse, not better.

It is extraordinary that the shadow Leader of the House should have said that derogation is acceptable in relation to Northern Ireland-at least, it was acceptable when the Labour party was in power; I do not know whether that applies today to Northern Ireland—but that derogation is unacceptable for the whole of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom as a whole faces a terrorism threat. I do not need to set out at length all the incidents that support that contention. Although Northern Ireland faces a far worse threat, sadly the mainland is not immune from it.

Sensible members of the Labour party abhor the men of violence, yet there is a sizeable minority within its ranks who welcome representatives of the men of violence into their midst and give them tacit support. What are we in this House and, more important, what are people outside it to make of the fact that a Bill such as this is in this position today? The Bill ought to have all-party support and it ought to be warmly welcomed by the Labour party. I suggest that the Labour party of 20 years ago would have given it a warm welcome. The usual channels should have been able to agree a fixed and reasonable timetable for procedure. If that would have happened 20 years ago, what is the reason for the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves? The Bill is designed to fight terrorism and it ought to command all-party support. It would have attracted all-party support in the United States of America and in most parts of continental Europe.

The Government had to act and table this motion. To be fair to the Opposition, they gave the Government due warning of what they intended to do and how they intended to behave. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) who led for the Opposition in Committee may find this a rare and unusual occurrence, but sometimes the words that he uses are taken seriously on the Government Benches. He made it clear to the Government that any co-operation on the Bill had vanished, following the statement to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 December 1988 in relation to the Brogan case.

After my right hon. Friend had made his statement on the Brogan case, the hon. Member for Huddersfield said: This has been a truly co-operative Committee. He was right about that. He continued: We have worked exceedingly well on a proper scrutiny of the Bill and have kept to a schedule that facilitates the timetable of the Bill that we know the Government must meet. That is an interesting statement. Up to 22 December the Opposition had agreed, through the usual channels, a timetable to which they had kept. They were aware that the Government were under pressure, because of the timetable to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred, to get it through. The hon. Member for Huddersfield then said: What a mess this statement has left us in…How can we carry on in the spirit of co-operation, faced with the great difficulties with which the Home Secretary has presented us? …We shall have he said, in a meaning and threatening tone— a very different attitude to the Bill when we return on 10 January."—[[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 December 1988; c. 236.]

The hon. Gentleman and those of his hon. Friends who support him are men and women of honour and they keep their word. They were as good as their word. When we returned to the House after turkey and plum pudding they adopted a very different attitude to the Bill. Acting, I am told, under the orders of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) they embarked on guerrilla tactics, the aim of which was merely to delay. As my hon. Friend the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) would testify, had he not been sworn to silence, the Opposition were unable and unwilling to agree on how the Committee should proceed in an orderly and proper fashion in its examination of this most important Bill.

Ms. Mowlam

Ought not the hon. Gentleman to tell the House that on 12 January the Government introduced a new clause and 14 amendments, which meant that the Committee had to discuss new material that Opposition Members, without a body of civil servants to help them, had to go through? If the hon. Gentleman is to paint a true picture of what happened, could we please have all the facts?

Mr. Sumberg

I accept that what the hon. Lady says is true. However, the reports of the Committee debates show what tactics were adopted by Opposition Members. Moreover, the statement of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, to which I have already referred, is on the record.

The Opposition said at first that they would co-operate, even though they did not like the Bill very much. Then they were at sixes and sevens; they did not know whether to proceed quickly, slowly or not at all. All hon. Members who serve on the Committee know that to be true. Opposition Members may have been working according to the directions and instructions of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I make no criticism of that. He is responsible for the Labour party's policy on home affairs. It is right that he should have some influence on how the Committee behaves and the tactics that Opposition Members adopt in Committee.

If that is what the right hon. Gentleman told them to do, and if they accepted his instructions, I think that the Labour party has taken leave of its senses. What better evidence does one give one's political opponents that one is not serious, that one does not recognise the urgency and that one has failed to be in touch with public opinion than that which one gives on terrorism? What better evidence can one give than to play—to quote the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on another matter—"clever silly" in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill? That is the evidence that some of my hon. Friends require about the motives of the Labour party.

During one of those late evenings when sleep was difficult because of the charms and eloquence of some Opposition Members, I chanced to read an article in The Times when I was looking for an explanation of this extraordinary behaviour by Opposition Members, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The article was by a former close colleague of Opposition Members. During his time in this House he took a close interest in home affairs. I refer to Kilroy, as he is now known—Robert Kilroy-Silk. When I read his article in The Times on 6 January it satisfied me as to why we are here this afternoon.

I shall read out part of the article. It gives the reason as to why we are debating this motion today. The article is headed One of the Paler Shadows". I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not here. An hon. Member: "He is having his tea." He will read Hansard, anyway.

The article continues: Where has the shadow Home Secretary been hiding himself for the past few months? Who is the shadow Home Secretary? No, that is not a sarcastic or a rhetorical question, or at least it was neither what I asked it of myself at the beginning of this week. For a brief but disturbing moment I could not recall the name or face of the incumbent of that august office…My temporary lapse of memory was occasioned by the fact that it is difficult to think of anything of note that Labour's shadow Home Secretary has said or done recently on home affairs.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

Does my hon. Friend agree that about the only pronouncement that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman was on football identity cards? Again, he is 100 per cent. out of tune with the British public.

Mr. Sumberg

I quite agree.

The article was written on 6 January, and the right hon. Gentleman has since made his statement. He is right out of tune with the British public. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he spoke on the case of Mr. Viraj Mendts, a case of great interest to many of my constituents.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

He was out of touch again.

Mr. Sumberg

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) makes the point that he was out of touch with the vast majority of people. He was certainly out of touch with the vast majority of my constituents, many of whom work in the city of Manchester and pay rates there.

The article—it is by Robert Kilroy-Silk, not me—concludes with the words: The fact that I had to pose the question to myself is in itself an indication of his failure to make an impact.

We have the answer there. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made an impact today, and so did other Opposition Members, by allowing us to get into the situation in which a guillotine motion must be proposed. [Interruption.] Some Opposition Members are here. I see the former Solicitor-General the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He makes up in quality what the Opposition lack in numbers.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and many other Opposition Members have made an impact, but not in the way that they probably would have wanted. They made an impact by saying to the House and to the British people that saving the face of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, proving Kilroy wrong rather than right, and justifying the right hon. Gentleman's virility is more important than making sure that the country has weapons to defeat the bomber and the gunman.

When we debated the matter in Committee, certain Opposition Members, no doubt sincerely—the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was one of them—and with some credibility argued that terrorism could never be defeated, that we had to learn to live with it, that we have always had it, and that we have to do our best to contain it. I am not prepared to accept that view and neither, I hope, is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Whatever is required, a civilised society must prevail. It will not be easy to defeat the terrorist.

Mr. Neil Hamilton

Although it is difficult to defeat terrorism, the only way it will be defeated is if terrorists believe that, despite the means that terrorists deploy, no Government will ever grant them their political objectives. As long as the Opposition show a lack of firmness of purpose, as they are doing today, they will give hope to terrorists and make it more difficult for us to defeat them.

Mr. Sumberg

My hon. Friend is quite right. Many times in Committee we asked the Opposition how they proposed to deal with terrorists. They answered by saying that they are perfectly satisfied that the ordinary criminal law is sufficient to deal with terrorists. In the light of their record, that is an extraordinary statement. It bears no relation to the reality in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members recognise that, in 1974—certainly during their period of office—there was a need for specific anti-terrorist measures. It is a reflection on the change in the Labour party and the pressures that have caused that change that the Opposition now feel politically unable to say to the Government, "We accept that there is a need for a specific measure against terrorism. Okay, there are certain points in the legislation with which we do not agree and which we want changed, but, in principle, we see the need to deal with a specific situation." They say that the ordinary law is sufficient and that we should try to deal with terrorism on that basis.

Opposition Members should say that to the people of Northern Ireland. They should say that to the people who have suffered from terrorism in this country. They should tell people who have lost friends and relatives that the ordinary law is sufficient. I only wish it were. If it were sufficient, we would not have to spend time this afternoon and all the time that we spent in Committee debating the issue. If we have determination, we can defeat terrorism. We must provide the means. We must give the forces of law and order the means to tackle and combat the men of violence.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

The hon. Gentleman's face is new to me in this kind of debate. I have been here all the years since terrorism first occurred. I remember every Minister, including a previous right hon. Member for Barnsley who is now a lord, telling me how we were destroying terrorism and that we were winning. I argued that the idea was utter nonsense and that terrorism would continue for many years.

The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) speaks with the attitude that we will conquer terrorism and that it is easy to conquer it if only the Prevention of Terrorism Bill is enacted. Hon. Members who have never taken part in such a debate before are giving the House guidance about how to do it. The hon. Gentleman should wake up. The matter is far more serious than that. It will go on for a long time due, to some extent, to the kind of nonsense that I have been hearing from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sumberg

I rather regret giving way. The hon. Gentleman plainly was not listening to what I said.

Mr. Flannery

Yes I was.

Mr. Sumberg

Then he did not listen well enough. I said clearly that the fight against terrorism is difficult. It will not be easy to win through. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear me the first time, I hope he heard me the second time. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will find that I said that. In any event, it will not be easy to win through, but it will be much harder if we follow the Opposition's policies. We would have no chance at all.

Opposition Members take the view that all is hunky-dory in the garden, that there is no need to do anything, that we can rely on the general criminal law, that we are just dealing with a group of rather horrible people, and that, somehow or other, sweetness and light will prevail. The public do not believe that. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) should talk to his constituents. He will find that they are 100 per cent. behind what the Government ae doing. They want us to succeed with the measure. They find it extraordinary that the Opposition should not have co-operated with us in Committee and this afternoon. If the matter goes to a vote and the Government win, we shall press ahead with the Bill. The Opposition will rue the day they showed themselves not to be supporters of the Bill but the tacit friends of the gunman and the bomber.

4.18 pm

Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West)

Not for the first time, the Government have introduced us to "Alice in Wonderland". Hon. Members may remember the debate in that story about executing the Cheshire cat. The king's argument was that anything that had a head could be beheaded. The executioner's argument was that a head could not be cut off unless there was a body from which to cut it. Even as a small child I found the executioner's argument more persuasive.

This is precisely what we are discussing this afternoon; it is the issue which the Government have raised. A guillotine is an instrument for separating one thing from another. In the context of Committee proceedings, it is to separate those parts of the proceedings which may be discussed from the parts that will not be discussed. There is no sense or meaning in a guillotine which relates to discussions that have already been completed. One cannot cut off the completed portion of a Committee's proceedings unless there is an uncompleted portion from which to separate it.

It is true that this motion deals with the remaining stages of the Bill, and it is proposed to allot one day to the whole of the remaining stages. That is disgraceful, and it cannot possibly appear as anything but running away from the debate. But whatever the appropriate period of time for the remaining stages, that is not a matter on which the Opposition could prevent the Bill from reaching the statute book, because it is wholly within the control of the Government, who decide how many days shall be allocated to it. Usually, that is a matter for business questions.

If it is said that the Committee stage is not quite complete—there remain the two debates about which my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) interjected, selected in the marshalled list—the Government are not chopping off a head: they are clipping toenails. The Committee is to sit tomorrow morning in any event, and those two debates will be disposed of well within the morning. If the Government believe that, for some reason, the Opposition proposed to extend those two debates, I ask where the evidence for that is in the context of anything that has taken place in the Committee.

Of course, the Government say that the Opposition have wasted time. Governments always say that and the Opposition say that they have not. Nothing would be added to that discussion by my denying it this afternoon. I simply ask any right hon. or hon. Member who would like to familiarise himself with the events of the Committee, and who would like to know whether the debate there occupied an inordinate amount of time and whether we invented fanciful suggestions for debate, to obtain a copy of the Committee's proceedings in the Vote Office and preferably read it all. If hon. Members do not have time to read it all, they should take any of our discussions at random and judge whether they were extended artificially, whether time was wasted, or whether we had a perfectly normal, rational debate on matters of genuine concern.

It is true that, at the outset of the Committee, we objected to the Government's bland assumption that when the Government get themselves into a mess with their legislative programme the solution is always and automatically for the Opposition to behave reasonably, curtail debate and agree a timetable. We do not accept that, because it is not a well-founded constitutional doctrine. It was the Conservative party which complained a few years ago that there was too much legislation and that we needed a rest from it, yet they created this problem by trying to cram too much sausage through the machine last Session, and then again this Session. So we started this Session late. Then they said that the simple solution was for the Opposition to curtail debate and be reasonable and helpful. We said that we did not accept that proposition, but our point was a constitutional one. No one who has read our debates could suggest that we extended them artifically or were unco-operative.

I complain at the travesty of our debates that we heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). If anyone accepts his argument, I plead with him to go and read our proceedings. For anyone who has heard or read them that suggestion is a sheer calumny; for anyone who has not, it was a silly and ignorant construction. I have said this before in the Chamber, but I resent the suggestion that we in the Opposition do not care about terrorism and that we take lightly the tragedy, loss and foolhardiness of it all. Some of us have known the victims of terrorism, so when hon. Members suggest that that explains the differences—

Mr. Neil Hamilton

rose—

Mr. Archer

Let me finish.

When hon. Members suggest that this is the explanation of our differences, such suggestions arise purely from their ignorance. If it is not from ignorance, it is from something more sinister.

Mr. Neil Hamilton

I make no imputation against the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the vast majority of his colleagues, or against their firmness of purpose in opposing terrorism I said that their opposition to reasonable Bills such as this is perceived by terrorists as a lack of firmness of purpose, and that is the problem we are discussing.

Mr. Archer

If the hon. Gentleman had been familiar with our debates in Committee, he would have known that a great deal of our time was taken up with what is counter-productive as a means of dealing with terrorism. I know that I would be out of order if I embarked on the subjects that we discussed, and I do not propose to do that. But I resent the suggestion—it may not have come from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), but it has certainly been made by other Conservative Members—that what is at issue with this Bill is whether we are opposed to terrorism.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who dealt with the Bill in Committee has not suggested that we wasted time or that our discussions were in any way improper. He appeared to be interested in the points we were making; he directed his mind to them and replied to them. We were not always in agreement, but I always understood his replies, which is not true of every Minister of this Government whom I have heard in Committee. We have had no complaints from the Minister that what was said in Committee was in any way inappropriate.

Right until the sitting after dinner on Thursday evening, after the Government announced that they were introducing this motion, we had heard no suggestion—although there had been no agreement about a timetable—that time was being wasted. Then, when the Committee resumed after dinner on Thursday, two things happened which I, at least, failed to predict. First, Conservative Back Benchers became different animals. Until then, although they had participated from time to time in our discussions and had made brief contributions, they had chiefly dealt with their constituency correspondence, wandered in and out of the Committee, and looked through the window. In one case, an hon. Member had brought a Division to a standstill until being shaken awake and told what to say. At that moment, I almost had a conscience about having called a Division, but the Division did not seem to interrupt his slumber, because a few moments later he adopted a somnolent posture and passed the rest of the sitting peacefully. In short, they were behaving exactly as Government Back Benchers are expected to behave in Committee, but after dinner on Thursday evening they began to exhibit an intense interest in our deliberations. They intervened in our contributions and made substantial contributions themselves, to which Ministers rose and replied. It was a real joy; but it was almost as though the Government side of the Committee did not want the business to be concluded.

Then, at 10 pm, the second unpredictable event occurred. We had had a number of late sittings, about which we made no complaint. We appreciated that there was urgency, but there were matters that we genuinely wanted to discuss. However, on the stroke of 10 on Thursday, the Government Whip moved the adjournment of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that there was so little left to discuss that we could easily dispose of it if we sat a little later, but the Government side voted down his proposal.

So it is not open to the Government to say that the business of the Committee was not concluded. It was nearly concluded, and would have been if they had not deliberately prevented it from being so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and, indeed, the Leader of the House have said, we have all taken part many times in guillotine debates and we could rehearse all the usual arguments in our sleep. Normally, our only problem is to remind ourselves of whether we are in government: or opposition so that we do not transpose the arguments.

But this debate is unique. The usual arguments are simply not applicable. The Government cannot say that we are bringing business to a standstill and preventing vital legislation reaching the statute book because there is nothing left in Committee for the Opposition to prevent. We, the Opposition, cannot say that the Government are ignoring the rights of the House and inhibiting free speech, because there is virtually nothing left for us to say. If Lewis Carroll had thought of that far-fetched situation, I have no doubt that it too would have been in "Alice in Wonderland".

The Opposition should resist the motion, first, because although it makes provision, it makes disgustingly inadequate provision for the remaining stages. In other situations, we would have had to say this in business questions, but, as it is, that seems a good reason for resisting the motion. Secondly, we should resist it because the House should not encourage pointless and unnecessary motions.

It only remains to ask, why are the Government doing this? Why should they want to do something that Governments normally resist having to do? Why should they want it to appear that the House is more divided on the principle of the Bill than it really is? Is it true that in this House we have a hobby of ascribing motives to one another. If an hon. Member mentions the state of the weather, we all speculate as to what reason he might have for introducing that subject. Even if he tells us of the reasons, we all ask one another whether those are the real reasons or whether there might be some deeper and more cunning reason.

I have racked my brains, but I cannot conceive of any reason why the Government should want to introduce this motion—

Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)

Fake publicity.

Mr. Archer

Well, my right hon. Friend has made one suggestion and perhaps we could all put forward our own suggestions, but I can think of no reason, commendable, disgraceful, or morally neutral. On Thursday evening I found myself wondering whether we had entered some Kafkaesque situation in which the inhabitants of the lunatic asylums take over and the people are governed by lunatics. That would explain a number of things that have happened in the House in recent months.

There is one other possibility, which is found back in "Alice in Wonderland." I have reminded the House of the king's argument and of the executioner's argument. The queen's argument was that if something was not done at once, she would have everybody executed. That was not the most logical contribution, but it was the most effective in concentrating people's minds. I take leave to wonder whether the "Queen of Hearts" has let it be known to her Ministers that they must be seen to be energetic and effective; that they must stand no nonsense and flex their muscles to let everybody see who is boss. I wonder whether they are demonstrating their macho response by introducing a guillotine motion every time there is a debate. I see only those two possible suggestions. I still have not heard a third.

4.33 pm

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, South—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, West—[Interruption.] I shall start again, I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). However, like his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he has put a huge smokescreen over what has happened in order to apologise for the activities of the Labour party. The public will not see this matter the same way. Therefore, it is for myself and my hon. Friends to expose the activities and the cavalier attitude towards the safety of the public of the Labour Opposition in relation to their dealings with the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in Committee.

Mr. Dobson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point, I shall then allow him to intervene.

The timetable motion has been forced upon the Government. There was no choice in the matter. That decision was forced on the Government by the Opposition, not by anybody else. As a member of the Committee, I was aware, as were all my colleagues, that there was an understanding between the Government and the Opposition that Committee consideration of the Bill would be finished by 19 January so that it could come back to the House for Report and Third Reading and then go to the House of Lords. That was because, if we did not complete our consideration of the Bill by 23 March, there would be no Royal Assent; the existing temporary provisions legislation would expire and the public would have no protection from terrorism in terms of the special powers that the Bill provides and neither would the police have the special tools that are specifically given to them by the House to deal with terrorism. That is what was at stake and that is what is at stake in this debate on the so-called guillotine motion.

It has been argued that the Opposition have said that the Government have reneged on the agreement because of the decision of the European court of human rights. In considering that position, we should remember that no extra Committee time was spent on the court decision because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made it clear that they were considering the matter.

What we are facing—it is the most important thing in the days after the accident at Lockerbie, after Enniskillen and the Battersea bomb factory—is the fact that without the Bill there is no protection against terrorism. That is what people outside the House must realise. They should also realise that the party that forced the guillotine did not support the Bill on Second Reading. It supported part of it and many Opposition Members voted against it. Indeed, two Opposition Members felt so strongly that they resigned from their Front Bench. The fact is that the Labour party today is against any legislation that gives power to deal with terrorists. That is what is at the root of this and that is what the public outside must realise.

I have two major points to make about the Bill. First, it does not deal only with terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is something that we all forget. The original 1974 legislation was indeed designed to deal with that problem, but today we are not just dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland. The attempt to bomb an E1 A1 jet at Heathrow airport illustrates that. We have seen international terrorists kill diplomats on the streets of London and we have seen WPC Yvonne Fletcher shot down on duty by a terrorist from the Libyan embassy in London—

Mr. Dobson

rose—

Mr. Hind

We have seen the recent Lockerbie explosion—

Mr. Dobson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind

I shall give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish.

We have seen a jet blown out of the sky at Lockerbie. Those acts were carried out by international terrorists. Those are the situations to which we, as Members of Parliament, must apply our minds in order to provide protection for the general public in this country. We are not just talking about Ireland because the Bill has other major facets.

Mr. Dobson

When the hon. Gentleman talks about the shooting of WPC Fletcher, is he suggesting that the prevention of terrorism legislation did or did not work in her case? What I remember—and bitterly as a London Member of Parliament—is that I protested immediately the Libyans announced that they were going to use the so-called Libyan people's bureau as a base from which to pursue the enemies of the Gaddafi regime. I demanded that the British Government close it and throw them out, but for years the Government took no action. It was as a result of that failure to act that WPC Fletcher was shot from the window. What is more, this Government, who say that they do not deal with terrorism or talk to terrorists, negotiated with the Libyans about how they should leave this country. Finally to add insult to injury, the Metropolitan police were forced to carry out the humiliating task of providing their colleague's murderer with safe conduct from this country. We shall take no lessons from Conservative Members about how to fight terrorism, because they have nothing to teach us.

Mr. Hind

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I did not remember his protest about that, because he protests about so much.

If the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 had been in force and the Government had taken the hon. Gentleman's advice it would have been of use. If he thinks carefully he will realise that the Act would have been important in that case. The people in the embassy had diplomatic status and that enabled them to leave. Because of the international conventions on diplomacy, the Government were not allowed to touch them. The hon. Gentleman knows that Conservative Members felt as strongly about that as he did. We had no control over the situation, which was forced on us by international agreements.

We are dealing with an international situation. On the streets of our country there are trained terrorists, many of whom have been trained in the middle east by the Libyans, the Syrians and Palestinian groups. Many of them are learning to counter the techniques of interrogation, and the Bill will at least give the police some of the tools that they need to get round that problem.

No doubt some of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee will remember the arguments advanced about security checks at airports. Those checks are currently being carried out at Heathrow and Gatwick and at all our airports to protect people using American airlines to fly to the United States and back. They are to counter the threat about a plane from Frankfurt being bombed which resulted in the Lockerbie air disaster. The powers to carry out those checks are contained in the Bill. Are the Opposition saying that those checks are not necessary? If they are necessary, how are they to be carried out if the Opposition prevent the Bill from becoming law?

What will the Opposition say to the relatives of those who may die as a result of proper checks not being carried out because the police or the security services did not have the powers contained in the Bill? I am sure that the Opposition would not be very happy if they were put in that position. That points to the need for the Bill. We must also be mindful of the planes that fly from London and from all over the world to Belfast. Surely people flying in and out of Ulster are entitled to the protection of the special provisions contained in this Bill and in others and which allow for the searching of baggage and checks for bombs and weapons. They also allow for the detention for 12 hours of suspected terrorists, people who may not be able properly to account for their activities.

These are important protections not only for the people on the United Kingdom mainland but for those citizens of the United Kingdom who live in Northern Ireland. Those matters were forgotten by the Opposition when they filibustered on the Committee. Let us deal with the Irish situation. Today the Irish terrorist is far more professional than he was in the past. I learned a great deal in Committee by listening to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who told us much about first-hand dealings with terrorists. It was quite frightening to hear that, especially after incidents such as the one at Eniskillen. Many of these terrorists are trained by the Red Brigades and Baader-Meinhof and middle eastern terrorist groups and they come to Ulster to do their worst. We must prevent them from doing their worst on the mainland.

As an English Member, I have a duty to my constituents to ensure that they are safe. That can be achieved through the exclusion orders in the Bill. Their purpose is to keep known terrorists who are in Northern Ireland away from the mainland, to prevent them from running a bombing campaign in the rest of the United Kingdom. Most of them are at large only because of the intimidation of witnesses in Northern Ireland. Nobody will come forward to give evidence against terrorists in the courts so that they can be properly convicted because the families of potential witnesses will live in fear.

Typically and laughably, the Opposition pray in aid the Brogan case decided at the European Court of Human Rights. That case involved five known terrorists with convictions, typical of this situation, who were excluded by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from the United Kingdom. Nobody can tell me, and I am sure that nobody can tell the public, that those exclusion orders were not necessary. We have only to look at the Battersea bomb factory to see that. In that case terrorists were arrested, but some are still at large in London. The police suspect that bombs with long fuses, similar to the one at the Grand hotel in Brighton, are ticking away waiting to go off. We need to find the people who planted those and nobody can tell me that the Bill is not necessary to help root them out.

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act prevented a seaside bombing campaign in the United Kingdom and was used some months ago to prevent the assassination outside his home of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In the Grand hotel explosion some of my colleagues and I saw the building virtually falling around us as an IRA bomber attempted to wipe out the whole Government in one go. Are the Opposition saying that the tools of detection and prevention of terrorism are not necessary in such cases?

Mr. Archer

If we are to take seriously the hon. Gentleman's contribution on this subject, will he tell us whether he really thinks that the Brogan case had something to do with exclusion orders? Has he even read it?

Mr. Hind

I have already spoken about the situation in relation to that. I cited the people in that case as typical of the sort of people that we know about and for whom exclusion orders are used. Given that situation, I am happy, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends are, about the existence of exclusion orders. One has only to look at bombings in London and at bombings at military establishments and at the Brighton case, which is typical, to see that such measures are necessary.

I now turn to the European Court of Human Rights case about Brogan and others. Because of the case put forward in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary it was not necessary to spend much time dealing with the Brogan case. The Government clearly told the Committee that they would have wide consultations about judicial supervision in the case of suspected terrorists who were detained for seven days. They needed to consult the judiciary in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, England and Wales. They also needed to consult three Government Departments and the matter had to be considered in detail. No extra time was used in dealing with that matter. The Opposition cannot pray in aid the Brogan case because the decision was made after the Bill was published. The date for the debate was already announced before the European Court of Human Rights deliberated on this matter. In order to come to a proper conclusion, widespread consideration of that decision is important.

It ill becomes members of the Opposition to accuse the Government of derogating from that position. My right hon. Friend had no alternative but to derogate. Had he not, we would have been in contravention of the European court's ruling and his actions would have been illegal. He did what the then Labour Government did, as a result of different factors, in 1974 and 1978. Again, the derogation was the result of action taken under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. It ill becomes the shadow Leader of the House to say that the Labour Government derogated only on Northern Ireland. Those 14 or 10 years ago, international terrorism was nowhere near as bad as it is today, so the criteria for dealing with international terrorism were different. I support the derogation.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—I am sure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will tell the right hon. Gentleman about this—told us earlier in the year in the debate on the Security Service Bill: The protection of our liberties is too important to be left to judges."—[Official Report, 16 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 39.] It seems that the Opposition will use the judges when it suits them. but in this case, as an apology for the position that they have taken on the prevention of terrorism, will say that the judges are a sufficient protection. When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook comes to the House, we shall have to check to see which face he is wearing.

Mr. Sumberg

Although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has left the Chamber, no doubt temporarily, he has been here from the beginning of the debate, but the spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was here for a few minutes at the beginning and has not been seen since. How are we to take seriously his claim to be the principal spokesman on home affairs?

Has my hon. Friend any idea where the right hon. Gentleman has gone, or when he will be back and whether he will play any part in these proceedings?

Mr. Hind

I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman is, and I do not care either.

A Committee is considering the Bill, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not a member of that Committee. Despite that, Conservative members of the Committee are aware that the right hon. Gentleman's sticky fingers are all over the way in which that Committee has been conducted. That conduct has resulted in the introduction of this guillotine motion. If the agreement to finish on 19 January had been honoured, the public would not have been put in danger and we would not have been forced to truncate the debate on this important Bill. Such behaviour sends out the wrong message to the public. It shows them that the Labour party is soft on terrorism, and its attempts in Committee to water down every strong item of the police's powers to deal with terrorism merely shows both the terrorists and the public that the Opposition are weak on terrorism and that they are likely to be the terrorists' friends.

Mr. Dobson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind

No, I will not.

Mr. Dobson

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to any hon. Member as the terrorists' friend?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

I doubt that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has implied that. If he has, I am sure that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Hind

I will certainly withdraw it. The point that I was making was that the Opposition's actions will be interpreted outside in that fashion. I know many Labour Members and I am sure that that is not so. I am saying that the wrong message is being sent out to the British public by Labour Members.

Mr. Holt

My hon. Friend may not wish to retract too conclusively his statement about terrorist supporters on the Opposition Benches, when he remembers the activities of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

That must be retracted.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will find that statement as offensive as the Chair does, and will retract it.

Mr. Holt

I find nothing that I have said about the hon. Member for Brent, East offensive.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. It is unacceptable to the Chair and to the House for hon. Members to refer to other hon. Members as a terrorist's friend. I hope that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh will reflect on what he said and will make an apology.

Mr. Holt

I will apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if you rule that what I said was an unparliamentary remark, I will withdraw that and allow the public to choose.

Mr. Hind

When all is considered and the public look at the Bill in the light of what has happened in the Committee, they will note that on Second Reading the Opposition abstained, and many Opposition Members voted against the Bill. Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have said that they support only that part of the Bill that deprives of their funds the bankers and financiers of terrorism. Those who are so cavalier in their attitude to the safety of the British public cannot be regarded as capable of forming a credible Government. I am sure that that will be reflected in the attitude of the British public in future elections.

The British public are entitled to be protected from terrorism, and the Government will provide that protection, and have accepted their duty by truncating the debates on the Bill. After Lockerbie, Enniskillen and many other horrors, the British public will not understand the stance of the Opposition.

4.56 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

It is not altogether clear why the Government have thought fit to introduce the guillotine motion. Had they provided as much time for the later stages of the Bill as for the debate this afternoon, there might have been a perfectly adequate amount of time for consideration of these matters.

I come to the debate with no axe to grind, because the third parties have been largely excluded from the debate. The Committee is not graced by the presence of any of my right hon. or hon. Friends and we would wish to consider, at a later stage of the proceedings, a number of the extremely important matters—some of them new—that the Bill contains. Therefore, we are extremely resentful of the Government's decision to truncate the Report stage and Third Reading and to squash them into a single day. This is a contemptible procedure, and one that we cannot possibly support.

I need not re-emphasise the view of the Democrats that the Bill is necessary, as I made that clear on Second Reading. The Government must have their legislation on the statute book by 21 March, the date when the Act ceases to have effect. The official Opposition appear to be divided about whether the Bill is necessary. The speech of the shadow Leader of the House suggested that the Labour party is opposed to the Bill, and may be opposing the timetable motion in part because of that, but that is not part of our argument.

Our view is that the substance of the Bill has changed since Second Reading. This is the last time, probably for quite some time, that the House will have the opportunity to debate these exceptional provisions, which are required to defeat terrorism. Although it will be necessary, if the Bill is enacted, to re-enact its provisions by affirmative resolution, that will give us the opportunity only to reject or accept the Government's case for the legislation in total, or to respond as the Government give the lead. We shall not have the opportunity to change the content of the legislation by amendment, save where the Government decide to lay such amended revisions before us. This is exceedingly important legislation, and although we are persuaded that it is broadly acceptable, we should have time to test its provisions in full on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green)

I am confused by what the hon. Gentleman said. I appreciate the fact that he believes in the importance of this measure and that it has to complete the parliamentary process by a certain date. However, I am not entirely certain whether the hon. Gentleman resents it being dealt with on the Floor of the House as at present, or whether he would prefer it to be discussed at greater length in a Committee of which neither he nor I am a member and to which, therefore, we could not contribute.

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Gentleman's intervention was entirely academic, as the Bill has practically completed its Committee Stage. The Leader of the House has made no serious complaint about the way the Bill was debated in Committee. Any objective observer taking the trouble to read the proceedings of the Committee would find that the Bill kept up with the timetable initially announced by the Government.

There was a hiccup when the Government announced that they did not intend to address the question whether a substantive change in the law should be made in response to the finding of the European Court of Human Rights. In that may lie the explanation that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was seeking, of why the Government have introduced this otherwise wholly unnecessary guillotine.

It is worth recalling the history of the Brogan case because of its impact on the discussions on the Bill. The Home Secretary gave the House to understand in his announcement of 22 December, that, under article 15, he was embarking on a temporary derogation from the provisions of the European convention on human rights. He said that he hoped to introduce a judicial element into the procedure to comply with article 5.3 of the convention. The House waited expectantly to discover the obstacles to achieving that. We are still in the dark.

When the Committee resumed on Tuesday 10 January, the Under-Secretary of State read out a letter, which some of us have read. The letter said that the Government did not expect to have reached a conclusion as to how to respond to the Brogan case in time to incorporate any necessary changes in the law before the enactment of the legislation and the Royal Assent. The date for that was given as 21 or 22 March.

Why are the Government delaying their response to the Brogan case? What difficulties have led to this parliamentary interruption of the improperly short deliberations on the Report stage of the legislation? I hope that the Minister will give the House the answer.

When this legislation was introduced, it did not take the Government three months to decide how to act. However, we have been told that it will take more than three months to reach a conclusion on the modest issue of detention for seven days, which the European court found to be a violation of the convention. The Home Secretary is behaving in an unacceptable and dilatory fashion. He may have been unable to carry his Cabinet colleagues with him in preferring the judicial solution. If that is so, we are entitled to know. If someone outside the Government is preventing them from doing what they wish—to introduce a judicial element to review the case of those detained for up to seven days—we are entitled to know.

It has been reported in some parts of the press that some judges have said that they will have no part in it. If that is so, it is serious. If judges are saying that they wilt riot carry out, not only the views of Parliament but the law of Parliament, we are entitled to know. It is unacceptable for the Home Secretary to seek to hush up this constitutional debate by confining the Report and Third Reading to a single parliamentary day.

Will the Minister convey to the Home Secretary the strength of our feeling that this issue should be debated on the Floor of the House. We must know why the Government are not yet ready to report to us. We have been told that it is because of interdepartmental consultations—my foot! That is not sufficient explanation. These matters can be conducted quickly if the will is there. The Government's willingness to deal with the matter is clearly lacking.

Mr. Mallon

Lest the House be under any misapprehension that discussions have reached stalemate with the judiciary only, hon. Members should be aware that the Army and police are refusing to give their intelligence to that type of judicial review. That is the stumbling block which should be confirmed by the Home Secretary today.

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that speculation. The House will listen with respect to the Home Secretary's explanation. We understand that he is dealing with a difficult security matter but he must give a frank explanation to the House. We have not received any such explanation. Instead, a Bill of profound constitutional importance which continues to curtail our citizens' liberties is being rushed through the House. [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members would like to sow the seeds of confusion about the attitudes of all Opposition Members. I have already explained our support for the Bill and our belief that it must be re-enacted. That does not diminish the constitutional importance of the measures before us, nor the seriousness of providing internal exile for more than 100 of the citizens of this country. It does not diminish the importance of holding people in detention for up to seven days.

Parliament must scrutinise and justify those matters at every possible opportunity. In future we shall not have an opportunity to amend the legislation, except on a Government motion. That is why we must be given adequate time to consider the Bill properly now. It is even more important to do so because the Government are legislating against the advice of Lord Colville, who disagreed with the way they intended to proceed on one aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Hind

I and many Conservative Members appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill. Does he agree that, considering the point made in the European court about judicial supervision of suspected terrorists in detention, it would involve a simple Bill once consultation had taken place? With all-party support, we could get that Bill through the House quickly. Does he also agree that it is important to have widespread consultation with all those involved—as much as anything, to win their support—because they will have to operate the legislation?

Mr. Maclennan

No doubt there are those who, like myself, are willing to enable the Government to pass their legislation as fast as is reasonable, and will do the same if they introduce another Bill. I object to the fact that the Home Secretary is not telling the House what is causing the delay in his response. Why is it that we cannot incorporate the conclusion of the deliberation in the Bill if that proves to be necessary? Surely that would be a far more sensible way in which to proceed. We have had not a whisper of information beyond the fact that discussions are still taking place.

Some of us fear that, when the Bill has received Royal Assent, we shall be told that the temporary derogation from the European convention is continuing, and will continue to the point at which it can no longer be regarded as temporary. The United Kingdom's commitment to the European convention on human rights will have then been seriously and unnecessarily weakened.

I recognise that the Labour Government thought it right and necessary to derogate from the convention to deal with Northern Ireland in 1978. It is conceivable that that will have to happen again, but it is not a light matter. It is a step that we should take only in the most exceptional circumstances. I am not persuaded that that can be said of the present circumstances. The Home Secretary has indicated what his preference is. If he intervenes in the debate, I hope that he will reaffirm at least that.

I hope also that he will tell us why it is that the House is having forced upon it a truncated procedure for further consideration of the Bill that is unrelated to anything that the Leader of the House said in his introductory remarks. It is a calumny to suggest that the members of the Committee have been unreasonably delaying progress in Committee. As I am not a member of the Committee, I read the reports of its proceedings with some detachment. I was left with the impression, however, that arguments were being advanced and followed properly, and that the timetable was being kept. The Government must do far better if they are to convince the House that it is right to guillotine the Bill.

5.12 pm

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)

The attendance this afternoon exemplifies the fact, as I would describe it, that most hon. Members are sick and tired of the lengthy deliberations that have arisen from terrorism, especially that in Northern Ireland. It is true to say that there is considerable sympathy in the House and throughout the country for the long-suffering Royal Ulster Constabulary, the armed forces and the people of Ulster. The fight against terrorism must be continuous. If we are to fail in Northern Ireland, we shall find ourselves in the position that is being suffered by the people of Beirut. Such a situation in Northern Ireland would spill over into the Republic of Ireland and into Great Britain itself.

I would have expected all-party support for the Bill. It is interesting that, when the Bill began to be considered in Committee, it had the full support of the old hands of the Labour party. It has been said that, after the Christmas recess, the Labour party returned to this place ready to cause obstruction and to slow down the progress of the Bill through Committee. We can draw our own conclusions. Could it be that the new Labour party got at the old Labour party and ensured that the Bill would be delayed by means of inefficiency?

Mr. Sheerman

If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the proceedings in Committee, he will learn why there was a change in tempo, or a suggested change in tempo, after the Christmas recess. It had everything to do with the Home Secretary's remarks shortly before Christmas, about temporary derogation. When we returned on Tuesday 10 January, we were handed a letter by the Under-Secretary of State. Any change in tempo had everything to do with the Government's lack of reaction to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and nothing to do with any change in attitude on the part of the Opposition.

Mr. Arnold

The Committee members should have dealt with that issue. The cumulative result, however, was delay, and that has thrown the entire process into danger. The delay was well exemplified by the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who first made a good case for the Bill but then had to scrape the barrel to find reasons for delay.

Mr. Sheerman

I intervene again to complete the hon. Gentleman's education. He is not a member of the Committee. If he feels so strongly about these matters—I understand that he would not be one of those who has been dragooned by the Government Whips to come into the Chamber to contribute to the debate—and if he examines the relevant issues in detail, he will learn that, if the Committee had sat for a further two hours after 10 o'clock on Thursday 19 January, there would have been no necessity for the introduction of a guillotine motion. If he is aware of that, why has that not coloured his remarks?

Mr. Arnold

If we were able to believe that the debate, which has continued for more than two hours, is about only an additional two hours of discussion in Committee, there would be no problem. It is clear, however, that the problem is far more widespread than that. At best, it can be attributed to the Labour party's knee-jerk reaction of opting for opposition for opposition's sake. That is the best interpretation that can be placed on the Opposition's actions. The worst interpretation is that they reflect the Labour party's failure to stand firmly and solidly with the rest of the House against terrorism.

We are debating the motion with the knowledge that the existing legislation will expire on 21 March. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent before that date, we shall have once again an influx of identified terrorists to the United Kingdom. Again, the IRA will be fund-raising in the streets of Great Britain and in our pubs and clubs. We should not allow that to happen; that is why we must proceed quickly with the Bill.

All people in both parts of the United Kingdom would expect a united Parliament to get on with the Bill and to make progress with it. The opposition to the motion seems to be a perfect example of the obscure art of odontopedology, where the Labour party opens its mouth and puts in its foot. When measures of this sort come before the House, why is it that the Labour party has an unerring capability to back losers? Over recent months, we have seen it backing losers time and time again. A Bill of this sort will have the undoubted support of the British people, yet the Labour party seems to be doing so much to delay its passage on to the statute book.

Ms. Mowlam

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we do not have both feet in our mouth when we speak, as he does. The Government control the timetable and they were able to decide when the Bill went into Committee. They could have arranged adequate time for the Bill to be considered in Committee, by the House and by the other place. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government are incapable of doing that, or why they are incompetent?

Mr. Arnold

Without a guillotine motion, and assuming the co-operation of all parties within the House, the Bill could be enacted quickly. It is the irresponsibility of the Labour party that has thrown the timetable into doubt and that is why the Government require a guillotine motion. They wish the Bill to meet the time limit that must be placed upon it by the expiry of the current legislation.

As I have said, it is extraordinary that, time and lime again, the Labour party seems to be able to back losers. Its obstruction of the progress of the Bill is an example of how it is out of step with the remainder of the country. Only last week, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) proved how the Labour party is out of step with the remainder of the country in its backing of Viraj Mendis—a law breaker, an exam fader and a marriage of convenience contracter. What is more—this is very much opposed by the British people—he is a social security sponger. Yet somehow the Labour party puts itself into the position of backing such a person.

A further example is the Labour party's backing of unilateralism, at precisely the time that multilateralism is breaking through. The Labour party has an extraordinary ability to back failures. A perfect example is the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who suddenly decided that he would back capitalism. He reached that decision only a week before black Monday and the collapse of the stock market. That demonstrates his great success in backing winners.

The House must keep up the fight against terrorism. There is a background of terrorist incidents such as the Lockerbie disaster, the terrible events at Enniskillen arid the discovery of the Battersea bomb factory. That shows that we must never let up in the fight against terrorism.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned the case of the Libyan embassy and said that he, a terrifically important person, called on the Government to close it. If embassies and high commissions in London are to be closed on the demand of ordinary Members, how many will remain open? How does one judge which embassies should remain open to avoid terrorism? Did the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras call for the closure of the Cuban embassy after the gun incident? He did not say what steps he would have taken after the murder of the policewoman. The killer was not identified. The head of the mission forbade interrogation, as he was entitled to do under diplomatic immunity, but the hon. Member did not tell us how he would have identified the killer or how he would have dealt with him.

It is clear that the united view of the House and the country is that the Bill should be got on with. The Government will keep up the fight against terrorism, without the Opposition's support, if necessary. I most certainly support the motion.

5.20 pm

Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South)

During the past couple of hours, Conservative Members have treated us to a curious mixture of pomposity, silliness, irrelevance and malice. Terrorism affects everyone. It affects all political parties.

Conservative Members try to tar the Opposition in eyes of the public by word association, conjuring up names such as Lockerbie, Enniskillen and Libya, and claim that the Conservatives are the only party interested in fighting terrorism. That is appalling nonsense. Just as everybody can remember where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated, most people can remember where they were when they heard of the Birmingham pub bombing. Hon. Members from the west midlands certainly can. Accusing Opposition Members of being indifferent to people's suffering and unconcerned about terrorism and its consequences is stupid and malicious beyond words. Everybody here wants to eradicate terrorism. The difference arises on the route we should take to achieve that common objective.

The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hinds) said that we have to fight terrorism with every means at our disposal. We must fight terrorism with every means at our disposal within the confines of a democratic system. The Argentine military dealt with terrorism using every means at its disposal and, in so doing, defeated its own objective. We are a democracy. If we descend to the level of our terrorist opponents and use dirty tactics, we deserve to be judged by the same standards.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)

Will the hon. Member please reconsider what he has just said? Surely he is not drawing any analogy between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government of Argentina.

Mr. George

This subject deserves far more seriousness than that question displays. I would draw a distinction between what the Home Secretary has said and the nonsense that we have heard from behind him. Each Conservative Member who has spoken has exceeded his predecessor in stupidity, which takes some doing.

Mr. Taylor

Answer the question.

Mr. George

There is no need for the hon. Member to wave as though he is about to take off. In no way would I equate the Home Secretary, for whom I have great admiration, with a Fascist dictatorship. If, however, we resort to lunatic tactics to fight terrorism, others might make such a connection. That must be avoided.

The Bill is constitutionally important. In our parliamentary system, the Government have every right to get their legislation through as long as they have a majority. In our parliamentary system, the Oppposition also have rights. With legislation as fundamental as this we, the Opposition, have a right to scrutinise it. The man in the street who comes into the Strangers Gallery and listens to our debate would form the impression that the Opposition team on the Committee are a group of Che Guevaras, Ho-chi Minhs or guerrilla war fighters, and that the Minister was met by a group of violent assassins. That is a travesty of the truth. If such a person believed that there had been an incessant guerrilla war, he should know that it was a short war, as the Bill was introduced only in December and it will be out of Committee in January.

Anybody who reads the reports of the Committee will discover that we are up to our 14th sitting. I do not know how we can be expected to deal with such fundamental, constitutional, security-related legislation in 14 sittings. We are being castigated for having reached only clause 24, but that hardly constitutes an appalling filibuster. We have dealt with the Bill remarkably expeditiously. In addition to our scrutinising the Bill, we have heard the Home Secretary make an important statement. Late in the day, the Government have introduced additional amendments. I feel no shame at being charged with scrutinising legislation. In no way does taking 14 sittings to deal with 24 clauses constitute parliamentary Luddism. We have done our job of scrutiny.

As has been said, at 9.55 pm last Thursday, the Government clearly intended to prevent the Committee from sitting beyond 10 pm. Those who read the report will see that the Government and their supporters voted to finish at 10 pm. The Opposition voted against that proposition. We were quite prepared to carry on. There are only a couple of amendments to deal with. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary should stop muttering, as his attendance of the Committee has not been 100 per cent. He was certainly not present then.

We are coming to the end of the Bill. If the Government had had the guts last Thursday to tell their Back Benchers, "Don't go home at 10 pm. Let us stick it out a little longer so that we can finish," we could have finished. The irony is that we are guillotining a Committee stage which has almost ended. We are not guillotining a large chunk of a Bill, merely a salami slice.

The process of guillotining goes back to 1887. It is wrong that the guillotine should be used in this case. I advise hon. Members to read an excellent fact sheet—No. 23—produced by the Library on guillotine motions in the House of Commons. The Library has examined at what stage legislation has previously been guillotined, and how long the Committee stage has continued after a guillotine motion has been passed. Hon. Members will find few occasions when such fundamental legislation has been guillotined after so few sittings.

If anyone is to blame, it is the Government business managers—not the Home Office—who introduced the Bill late and then imposed a deadline which makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny. What the hon. Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Lancashire, West said does not represent the Committee that I attended.

Ms. Mowlam

Has my hon. Friend noticed that, according to the fact sheet from the Library, the average time for the Government to guillotine a Bill is 86 hours? This Committee has sat for only 52 hours, which gives a firm indication of how irrationally the Government have acted in this case.

Mr. George

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I made one of the longest speeches, which lasted about 40 minutes and dealt with an amendment on two serious points. Two serious aspects of counterterrorism were disposed of in that 40 minutes. I would not wish to inflict my speech on many people except as a form of punishment, but if hon. Members care to look at it, they will see that about a third of that time was spent responding to interventions from Tory Members. My speech could have been completed about 20 minutes earlier.

Moreover, the Chairman, who certainly would not permit superfluous, irrelevant and repetitious speeches, had to ask them to let me finish my speech without such frequent interruptions. So there is no evidence of filibustering. If hon. Members make a textual analysis of the speeches, they will see that they were not excessively long.

It is not right to argue that the Committee was beset with bad temper. The Opposition were not hellbent on filibustering, but wanted to do a proper job of scrutiny. The Committee was reasonably amicable. The travesty described by Tory Members is not a representation of fact. Anyone who is interested in a serious, objective analysis of what took place in Committee, who reads the unfair and silly speeches of Tory Members and then the Committee reports will come to the conclusion that Committee members made a legitimate expression of parliamentary opposition, as is the role of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, be it the Labour or Tory party.

Terrorism, whether indigenous or international, affects many people adversely. The rise of international terrorism must be contained. The hon. Member for Bury, South has argued that terrorism can be eradicated, but I would rather cite more learned authorities than him. Because weapons are so freely available and so many causes adversely affect so many people, either in reality or imagination, terrorism will be with us in perpetuity. It is nonsense to say that terrorism will be eradicated only by firmness. That is untrue. Even if we could eliminate domestic terrorism, which we cannot, we shall always have to deal with other people's terrorism. The Belgian people have little indigenous terrorism, but they have imported terrorism.

It is dreadful to argue that Labour Members are indifferent to the consequences of terrorism. Opposition Members who have spoken hardly represent the militant edge of the Labour party. I resent my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the former Solicitor-General, being castigated for being soft on terrorism. It is unfair of Tory Members to accuse us of indifference or, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) did, of being sympathetic to, and the friends of, terrorists. I am delighted that he withdrew that unfair remark, albeit with bad grace.

Our task in Committee was made more difficult, not so much by our endeavours, as by the timetable restrictions and the lateness in introducing the legislation. It was made even more difficult by the confusion consequent on the proceedings being interrupted by the Home Secretary's interim decision on the European Court of Human Rights' judgment. That the Home Secretary came before the Committee was welcome, but it took up one sitting. It is difficult for us to deal with legislation when the Government's response to an important part of it is suspended until after the Committee has completed its deliberations.

How can we legislate on the prevention of terrorism when the Government say, "Sorry, we can't provide you with adequate information because we have not made up our mind how we shall respond to the human rights judgment"? Our task was made more difficult as too little time was allocated to the Committee.

Tory Members who peruse the proceedings will conclude, as will any fair-minded person, that on 19 January we could have completed our proceedings. The Government for one reason or another did not want that because they wanted to come to the House today and guillotine a Bill that to all intents and purposes had been completed. As has been said, they wanted to show that they were macho and to castigate us for indifference to terrorism. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West has cited often quotes from "Alice in Wonderland". I add another—that if one shuts one's eyes and says something three times, it must be true.

Conservative Members may think that, if they point a finger at us and say that Labour Members do not care about terrorism, some people may believe it.

In some ways we do great damage to our cause by causing confusion—

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

The hon. Gentleman invited the House to study the Committee proceedings. I notice that on Thursday 19 January, the very day he has mentioned, he made a speech in excess of three quarters of an hour on one small point. Can he justify that not being a filibuster?

Mr. George

If the hon. Gentleman had been here and awake five minutes ago, he would have heard me explain that. Either his attention span is short, he was sleeping or he was absent. If he was not present, he should not point the finger at me when I have the right explanation. For his benefit, I repeat that much of the time was spent on responding to silly interventions from Tory Members who for one reason or another wished to conclude proceedings at 10 o'clock by filibustering, yet we are being accused of filibustering. My second point was that the amendment dealt with two fundamentally important elements to counter terrorism and that to spend 45 minutes on them was do do them less than justice. Furthermore, I had the protection of the Chairman, who told Tory Members to let me finish my speech because it was unfair to make so many interventions.

Mr. Sheerman

My I assist my hon. Friend? May I draw his attention to column 691 of the last sitting of the Committee, when a further two hours would have seen the end of the proceedings and the Chairman had to reprimand Tory Back Benchers. and upbraid them because they did not wish to make progress? If the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) wishes to make a serious point about the longest speech, which was only 40 minutes on an important point, surely he should take into account the Chairman's criticism of Government Back Benchers.

Mr. George

I welcome that intervention.

We must combat terrorism by the means at our disposal, in conjunction with our friends and allies abroad. That can be done through legislation—through more normal, ordinary legislation. If we can only re-create a degree of consensus we may succeed, but the task of achieving more harmony is not likely to be advanced by speeches such as we have heard from Conservative Members.

Everyone present today wants domestic and international harmony, which would allow people to lead the lives they deserve. We all agree on the goal, although there are differences between us. I hope that Conservative Members will have the good grace to realise that there are other ways of proceeding. I trust that not all of them feel affinity or sympathy with the motion. In fact, hardly anyone whom I have come across fits the caricature that has been described this evening.

I also hope that those who are impartial—I exclude the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members from this accusation—will conclude that the Committee stage need not have been guillotined unless the Government wished to guillotine it. When we proceed with the Bill tomorrow, if there is to be any prolongation—which I hope there will not—it may be as a result of formal guillotining. If the Government had let the Committee reach its natural conclusion, this slot in today's proceedings could have been used to deal with matters infinitely more important than allowing Conservative Members a glow of pleasure from making the emotional and rather silly speeches to which we have been subjected.

5.41 pm

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)

I wish to speak because I feel that my constituents would be rather concerned if they thought that there was any danger of the Bill not reaching the statute book within the time necessary, and thus not clearing the House by the end of this month. We are debating a timetable motion, but on occasions during the debate that seems to have slipped the minds of some hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for clarifying his statement, because I felt that he was verging on the extremism of which he was accusing Conservative Members when he made certain allegations affecting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

A timetable motion should not have been neccessary. It should have been apparent to both sides of the House that this was a vital piece of legislation. I have not had time to look through the reports of all the sittings and, given the way in which these things work, I am sure that not every member of the Committee has listened to every word. I have noted, however, that there were 14 sittings, making 19 sessions. A quick perusal of the documentation suggests that Opposition Members' speeches did not always feature conciseness of thought, and that has contributed to the concern that has forced my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bring forward the motion.

The problem is not that any member of the Committee is irresponsible. I am sure that Opposition Members are upright and clear about the need to combat terrorism. Some, at least, of their remarks are concise, and no doubt their approach to the legislation is responsible. I am sure that they share the views of a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who said, when discussing the introduction of an earlier Bill to deal with terrorism: Unpleasant as are the powers contained in the Act, they are, in my view, necessary in order to prevent the far more serious consequences of terrorist violence."—[Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1520.]

Opposition Members who take that view will, I am sure, be aware that some of their colleagues are not so responsible. They are, I am afraid, extremely confused. I happened to notice that last year the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said: Conservative Members uphold the Act year after year when innocent people are being terrorised."—[Official Report, 16 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 942.] That shows not just confusion, but severe confusion, about whom the Bill is trying to protect. It is trying to protect innocent citizens of the United Kingdom, and doing so, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South said, means that there must be tough provisions. To take the view that those provisions are causing unnecessary hardship to suspected terrorists seems perverse in the extreme.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer (Liverpool, Walton)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is not in the Chamber at present, but he was present a little earlier. Did the hon. Gentleman give to my hon. Friend that he intended to refer to him and attack what he had said? My hon. Friend may have an answer to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He may have been talking about people who are not suspected terrorists, but have been held for some time and then released. That has happened, after all.

Mr. Taylor

I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I would have hoped that the hon. Member for Hillsborough would continue to listen to the debate with the same interest that 1 have shown. If he feels that I have misquoted him on 16 February 1988—I have his speech before me—I am sure that he knows what he can do to rectify that.

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have always known it to happen in the House—until now, apparently—that hon. Members who are about to refer to, or attack, other hon. Members give them notice. It seems that in the last few years Conservative Members have dispensed with that practice. I think it worth while for us to be told if we are to be attacked, and thus to have the opportunity to be present and at least try to answer or express a view. If that is now not the practice of Conservative Members, it means that they have sunk even lower than I thought.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I have the hon. Gentleman's point. If one hon. Gentleman is going to refer to another, it is normally common courtesy to inform him.

Mr. Sumberg

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) may have been referring to me. In my speech, I referred at some length to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I did not tell him that I was going to do so because I had expected him to be in the Chamber for the whole debate, which I thought was not an unreasonable assumption.

Madam Deputy Speaker

I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was referring to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who now has the Floor.

Mr. Taylor

I am grateful to you for your reasonableness, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no desire to attack any hon. Member who is not present; I would rather attack hon. Members—if "attack" is the word—when they are present. As I have sat through the whole debate, I was not able to notify the hon. Member for Hillsborough that I wished to quote him. I hoped that he would stay in his place.

I am sure that Opposition members of the Committee will be responsible. I note that the timetable motion allows a further sitting of the Committee on 24 January which can continue until 11 pm, so that there will be no restraint on the way in which Opposition Members debate the two extra new clauses which they have said are so important to them. Judging by past performance and speeches in this House, some of their hon. Friends are less responsible on these matters, so the timetable motion is important because it also has a bearing on Report and Third Reading. It is at that stage when, I am afraid, the normal channels to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred could be found to be less than reliable. If that were so, there is a grave danger that the House would not proceed in an orderly way with its business before the end of the month. In those circumstances, the Bill would fall foul of the date of 22 March, which would be outrageous.

My constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friends would justifiably feel that our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had not acted promptly enough if he was not able to push the business through by the end of this month. For those reasons, I entirely accept that a guillotine motion is needed. It will enable the Bill to take its course by the end of this month, with sufficient time, still, for reasoned argument and—as the hon. Member for Walsall, South said was necessary—for a proper scrutiny in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading.

People in the United Kingdom do not want the police to be handicapped in fighting terrorism. They do not want terrorist organisations to be free to operate. The Government cannot afford to wait for terrorist crime to be committed before bringing in legislation. I do not think that anyone would dispute that there are controversial provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. There are many provisions which hon. Members on this side of the House would have preferred not to be introduced had they not been so necessary. We are dealing, however, with a highly charged situation.

The people in Northern Ireland and on this mainland, who would be affected, would not understand it if legislation was not in place. The risks for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be too great if there were any signs of the sort of extremism in certain quarters of the Labour party frustrating the Bill's passage through the House. In those circumstances, I entirely support my right hon. Friend's action and I ask the House to do so tonight.

5.52 pm

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

In saying a few words about what is, in effect, a guillotine motion, I should observe that, if one is a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland in this sort of debate one experiences the guillotine on a regular basis. I thought that it might be relevant in a debate on a guillotine motion if I were not to recognise the fact that littel time is left for me. I realise, however, that the Minister and the Opposition Spokesman have important points to make in reply and I shall not allow the guillotine to be enforced upon them as it so often is on Northern Ireland Members. My remarks must be even more compressed than they were in Committee, when we were accused of filibustering.

There is an air of unreality, because in this debate about a guillotine motion we cannot debate the actual Bill. The debate, however, has now lasted almost twice as long as two important pieces of Northern Ireland legislation-those which removed the freedom of the press and the right to silence. That, in effect, tells us something about this debate, although I am not sure what. What brought a sense of excitement to the Committee was wondering whether there would be a guillotine, a change of orders or just what would happen. What was remarkable was that it seemed that, when a decision was taken to put a timetable motion on the order of business, and it looked as though the Government might get through without enforcing it, there was some panic on the Government side. As one who is not involved in either of the major parties, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that both sides wanted a punch-up and that extra time was being sought on the Floor of the House, for whatever reason.

One had only to listen to some of the speeches today to realise that the Government wanted this debate to make the silly, unfair and untrue point that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. I live in the midst of terrorism. I see it from all sides every day of the week. I do not believe that it is right that people who may have no experience of it should make wild and untrue accusations.

A study of the record of the Committee shows that it was not dealing with a straightforward Bill, because the Bill could only be considered in relation to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which applies exclusively to the North of Ireland. They interlock at almost every stage, so that it was not dealing with one piece of primary legislation but with two, long, detailed and complex pieces of legislation. For that reason not only had we to spend more time on some of those issues, but we needed a change of Minister. What came through consistently was that there were times when the Home Office Minister felt that, possibly, the Northern Ireland Office Minister might be in a better position to give the information required, and vice versa. Because of the ministerial indecision and the substantial lack of information, especially about statistics which has still not been provided-it was almost impossible to make the type of crucial decisions that have to be made about this legislation.

During a radio interview this morning about the role of the Committee, the interviewer asked me, "Was it not the case that you were examining this legislation line by line?" I said, "Yes. I was under the impression that that is what a parliamentary Committee was for, which is why people like myself rise at 5 o'clock in the morning, catch a plane over here, sit through on that Committee until 3 o'clock the next morning and are prepared to do so on the subsequent day." It ill behoves people to make accusations that an irresponsible approach was brought to the Committee. It was anything but, because people do not spend such hours unnecessarily on the last day of Parliament before Christmas. We all know that most hon. Members would be going out to buy presents arid, perhaps, stopping in some other place en route. The reality is that the Committee sat through that day to the early hours of the morning and successfully considered two substantial pieces of legislation in five weeks. I sat on the emergency provisions Bill Committee, which I believe lasted about three months.

If fault there is, that fault is with the Government, who did not foresee the problems which would arise. Between 1984 and January 1988, they had sufficient time to table that Bill so that it could be dealt with in a way that would meet their timetable without this sort of pressure.

I believe that the role of such a Committee is an important and valuable one. We all learn something more about the legislation; new points arise and we gain a clear perspective of the difficulties foreseen, both by those opposing it and by those proposing it. There is something Stalinist about an approach which brings down a guillotine in such circumstances. When it became obvious that the Bill could be finished without a guillotine, near-panic broke out on the Government Benches and there was a great rush to be involved in the guillotine debate, for whatever reason.

I have already described the logistical problems that exist for Members representing Northern Ireland. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members appreciate that much of the work that is done for a Committee on such a Bill is carried on outside that Committee. One must obtain the necessary professional advice and be briefed on the legal aspects of the Bill. If a Member representing Northern Ireland is unable to obtain such help because of insufficient time he is at a disadvantage similar to that felt by an hon. Member who must keep looking at the clock to ensure that he does not guillotine someone else's speech.

The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) has said that terrorism must be defeated—in fairness to him, he consistently said that in Committee. The judicial abnormality created by the Bill establishes a situation that is crucial to present and future discussions. That abnormality is exactly the type of murky waters within which the terrorist likes to swim, within which he gets his cover and his recruits and spreads his propaganda. Such abnormality suits the terrorist.

If we consider the sorry scene before and after 1974, it is clear that the highest standards of judicial practice have been knocked down like skittles. The House has not done that although it has been the witting or unwitting agent—but those standards have been knocked down by the very people against whom the law is aimed. The Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and all the other paramilitary groups have been able to seize the ball to knock down those skittles as they wanted. They realise more than anyone else that they can only exist in an abnormal situation. That is their milieu and where they thrive.

I do not believe that the Bill or any other legislation will do what the hon. Member for Bury, South wants. We have had almost 20 years of such emergency legislation. To date that legislation has not defeated terrorism; nor will it do so in the future. If all of us, some of us or other people are standing here in 10 years' time and the same conditions and problems prevail, what then? What other steps can then be taken? What other steps are possible within the realms of ordinary jurisdiction?

With the Bill and other such legislation, the Government are going further and further down the wrong road. There must come a point when someone with strength in the Government will cry halt. They are on the wrong road because the Bill is incapable of defeating terrorism—there is no known piece of legislation that is.

The only way that terrorism will be defeated will be when the people in the north of Ireland have sufficient confidence in legislation. When those people are not suffering at its hands and when they recognise that it is there to protect their rights and interests, is when terrorism will be defeated. Until then, however, the Bill and other such legislation sharply focuses the fact that such devices simply cannot deliver. In Committee, I pointed out many examples of the very activities covered by the Bill—those activities did not occur in the vague past, but happened that week—which were standing in the way of obtaining convictions in the North of Ireland.

I find it difficult to accept that anyone would believe that there was some sort of filibuster in Committee. I was present for most of the time and, if there was, I did not hear it. It ill behoves people who were not present to make such accusations, especially when one appreciates the hours that Members spent deliberating the Bill in a businesslike manner. Every time such a Bill comes before the House or a Committee, it must be put on the rack or under the spotlight to be taken apart, because, in part, it deals with the most basic rights of people.

6.5 pm

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

I am hesitant to say that this has been a good, constructive debate because of the appalling things that I have heard from Conservative Members tonight. Any impartial observer of our proceedings would agree that the debate has been unlike most of the discussions in Committee. Most of the time in Committee we had workmanlike and constructive debate. As in all lengthy Committees, there were light and heavy moments, but constructive cut and thrust was the general tenor of our debate. That was certainly not so today.

The guillotine motion has been made necessary by a Government who have blended incompetence with arrogance and spiced the dish with selfish malice. The Government are incompetent because they are bent on forcing a menu of grotesque proportions through a limited parliamentary timetable. It surprises no independent observer when that menu proves to be so vast that it is incapable of digestion by our parliamentary process and democratic system.

The Government are arrogant because they are deaf to international opinion and to the views of their critics. They managed their response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in such a way that they alienated their European and international counterparts and deeply embittered all but their most slavish adherents.

It is with a sense of sadness rather than spite that I note the malice that has been apparent in today's debate. At a certain time I believe that Government business managers thought that the Government could guillotine consideration of the Bill at an early stage even if insufficient time had been given for such consideration. No doubt they thought that, by moving a guillotine, they could trumpet to the world that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. Although the Home Secretary may not have made that allegation, any independent observer would testify that there are plenty of smaller fry who could be encouraged to say that in the most disgraceful way.

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow)

rose—

Mr. Sheerman

No, I will not give way, because there is little time left.

The Opposition have a heavy responsibility regarding this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it is not a normal Bill, but one of great constitutional significance because it deals with the traditional rights and privileges of our citizens—their rights of liberty and equal treatment under the law. I remind the House that the Bill is far more complex and longer, in terms of the main clauses and schedules attached to it, than the Bill we considered in 1983.

We have not had sufficient time for proper deliberation. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) rightly said that, as Her Majesty's Opposition, we have a duty and a responsibility to scrutinise the Bill in a manner sufficient for that purpose.

I can say with confidence that at many times the Committee's scrutiny improved the Government's understanding of their own Bill. On many clauses and amendments, and certainly in regard to the new clauses, we educated the Ministers responsible—and two Ministers responded on different aspects of the Bill—in terms of their understanding of the clauses. I do not say that to make the hon. Gentlemen look foolish. That was the nature of the opposition that was the spirit in which our inquiries were received. The Bill is complex and needed such scrutiny.

As has been said this afternoon, we needed only two or three hours in which to finish the Bill in Committee on Thursday evening. For some reason—either the Government did not want to he embarrassed, or they wanted to say that the Opposition are soft on terrorism—the Chairman of the Committee said that no one in the Committee on both sides wanted to make any progress. That has never occurred on any Committee of which I have been a member. The Chairman directed those remarks particularly at Government Back Benchers.

We have had an honest and full scrutiny of the Bill. We had redoubled our efforts to ensure that some of the new provisions of the Bill—those dealing with finance flowing from terrorism, or with the remission that sentenced prisoners can receive—received particular attention, but no more than was required to do justice to the arguments that were being advanced.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned the Queen of Hearts. I believe that that is where the trouble lies with the guillotine. My right hon. and learned Friend was absolutely right that the Prime Minister must have said, "We have to show that we have a tough and macho image. We have to get through a lot of legislation in this parliamentary Session, and with this first Bill we have to show that we will be tough." Therefore, the guillotine was imposed, quite unnecessarily.

Mr. Sumberg

rose—

Mr.Hind

rose—

Mr. Sheerman

I will not give way. There is insufficient time and both hon. Gentlemen have had plenty of time.

Mr. Hind

I spoke for only 17 minutes in 52 hours in Committee.

Mr. Sheerman

If one reads newspapers and writes one's Christmas cards in Committee, one cannot whine in the debate on the guillotine.

We believe that the guillotine motion is an attempt to show the Government's macho image and to be a warning to all those other Committees that are scrutinising Bills at present. It is a disaster that we should be asked to scrutinise a Bill that started off as a permanent piece of legislation to replace a temporary piece of legislation.

On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told us that he was sorry that he had not responded to the European Court of Human Rights before Second Reading, but he had every intention of doing so early in the Committee proceedings. However, on the Thursday before Christmas, the Home Secretary came to the Committee for the first time and said that, reluctantly, he had to move to derogation in respect of the European Court of Human Rights. However, we had the impression that it would be temporary. After the Christmas recess, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department came to the Committee with a letter that he told us had been sent the day before, although, unfortunately, we had not received it until that morning. If one read between the lines, it was clear that the derogation would, in effect, be permanent and that it would not be effective before the Bill had received Royal Assent.

It does not seem unreasonable for Her Majesty's Opposition to say that this is a fine old how-d'ye-do, when the Government start a Bill on Second Reading and we do not know what the Bill will look like halfway through, and when, halfway through the Committee stage, we are told that the Bill will be a temporary permanent piece of legislation. Any constructive Opposition would have to say, "We can no longer guarantee co-operation on this Bill." But the Government received a reasonable amount of co-operation that was far beyond what they deserved. Last Thursday evening, there were but two hours to go and the Government could have had their business. That was clear to the Government managers, to the Opposition Whips and to every Member of the Committee.

It is an absolute scandal that the Government can push forward a guillotine motion today in the light of what happened in Committee on Thursday evening. I can only assume that that was because of the Prime Minister's view that the Government have to show a macho image, or, the other, quieter, voice that the Home Secretary is a little ashamed of—

Mr. Sumberg

rose—

Mr. Sheerman

That would provide the possibility for Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) who is trying to intervene, to make scurrilous remarks that some Opposition Members are friends and sponsors of terrorists and terrorism. There was an apology for one such remark this afternoon, but at the end of his remarks the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said that the Opposition were the tacit friends of the gun and the bullet. That is a slur on the Labour party and on Her Majesty's Opposition. It should have been retracted and I hope that it will be denounced by the Home Secretary when he replies to the debate.

Unfortunately, the guillotine motion has been a waste of the time of the House. It reveals much about the methods and the philosophy of the Government, who are determined to bludgeon all opposition and criticism into submission by any means at their disposal and to use any sledgehammer to hand. Today's debate shows that the Government will cut each and every debate because the one thing that they know about this place at the moment is that they will win the votes. But they will lose the arguments. That is why the guillotine favours those with large votes but with not much to say in favour of the case that they are making. We understand that, and we can predict it. But we do not understand a Government who will stop at nothing and cannot stoop low enough to slur and smear the Opposition, regardless of the importance of the issue and the depth of feeling about terrorism. Those who stand up to the Government are open to slur because we have an authoritarian Government.

The Opposition hate and despise terrorists and terrorism. We believe that there are far more effective ways of combating those evil men and women than throwing legislation at them. We hold the honest opinion that there are alternatives under the laws of our land that apply to all citizens. The terrorists love the oxygen of legislation far more than the oxygen of publicity. We believe that the guillotine motion will do nothing except fuel the cynicism of ordinary men and women in this country who are not swayed by masses of legislation and the lack of effective action against terrorism.

6.18 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

As usual on these occasions, there have been widely differing accounts of what happened in Committee, but a certain number of facts have been established. If the Bill is to be effective, it needs to be on the statute book by 21 March. Agreement was reached in the usual way on the pace of discussion in Committee. Having reached that agreement on 10 January, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said on 12 January that the Opposition could no longer co-operate on the timetable, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave again today and at great length in a press statement, when he said that any question of co-operation with the Government had been rendered meaningless.

It is impossible for the hon. Gentleman to have it both ways. Either he is revelling in his indignation that we were so inadequate in our handling of the Brogan judgment, and is withholding his co-operation in order to show how indignant he is, or he has been co-operating all the time and wants the Bill to reach the statute book after proper discussion. His speech today was riddled with the same confusion as has been shown by the Opposition throughout. I understand that that confusion continued on Thursday night.

It has been said several times today that, having said that they would withhold co-operation, on Thursday night the Opposition appeared to be willing to press on. However, in other ways we have received a clear signal that the Opposition were very keen that the Committee should shut up at 10 o'clock. There was the same confusion as has illustrated the Opposition's attitude to the Committee stage throughout.

I do not entirely blame the hon. Member for Huddersfield. We have a certain amount of information about this matter. It is clear to me that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—[Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] That is the point. Like some 18th or 19th-century general, he prefers to command the battle from a distant hill. That is what happened to Lord Raglan at Balaclava. Like Lord Raglan at Balaclava, he gave the most ferocious orders, at a distance, to the troops. The right hon. Gentleman told his troops that they must tear up the agreement, charge down the valley, regardless of loss, and land themselves in this guillotine motion.

To do the hon. Member for Huddersfield credit, I am told that, unlike Lord Cardigan on that unhappy occasion, he protested against these obtuse tactics but was overruled. Far away—as again this evening—and out of range on his hill, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was adamant that—

Mr. Sumberg

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd

No, I had better continue with my speech because I do not have very much time.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) illustrated in his speech, the Opposition openly and publicly—and taking credit for it—withdrew their co-operation on 12 January and in various statements thereafter on a Bill that is urgently needed.

The Committee stage is not complete, and the remaining stages are ahead of us. There is not a great deal of time. Given the risks of delay and the hostile, though admittedly thoroughly confused, attitude of the Opposition, who are shifting a bit from day to day, it would have been foolish for the Government to take them on trust and not introduce the guillotine motion.

Why did the Opposition withdraw their co-operation? Why did it change from a relatively co-operative Committee into one in which the Opposition decided, day by day, how hostile and disruptive they were going to be? The answer that the hon. Member for Huddersfield gave was the Government's handling of the Brogan judgment. The serious contribution on that matter today came, as one has come to expect, from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I shall deal with what I understood him to say, although I am afraid that I returned to the Chamber in the middle of his speech. [Interruption.] I hope that no comparisons will be made between me and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My score, as regards the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, was one-love at the beginning of the day and now it is two-love. In most sports, that is considered to be a margin.

Although he is dissatisfied with the outcome, I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will agree that both my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and I have been entirely open both with the House and with the Committee about the handling of the Brogan judgment. I explained both on Second Reading and in Committee just before Christmas how we might proceed: either by derogation under the convention or by introducing some form of judicial control. I said that we wished to find a judicial route, if we were able to do so. I went on to explain the difference between the continental system and ours over the concept of an examining officer.

That difference was recognised by the court at Strasbourg. There is difficulty, therefore, over devising the judicial mechanism that the court's judgment suggested to us. I explained why, if we are to continue to use this power of detention up to seven days—which I believe is essential—it is right to derogate. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham thought it right after Christmas, and I entirely agreed with him, to bring the Committee up to date and to explain that, although we were still working on the possibilities of a piece of judicial machinery, it was not realistic to expect that there would be an early conclusion to our deliberations.

In response to what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I should like to add something to what we have already said. This is not a light matter. The hon. Gentleman did not treat it as a light matter. It would be foolish for anyone to do so. We are talking about three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom0—Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. Their ways of handling these matters are all different. We are also talking about the need to consult various people within those jurisdictions who are not Government servants and who are not to be taken for granted. They need to be consulted on a number of matters, if we are to set up a judicial machinery. They must be consulted on who should do the job and what information they need to be given. We are not talking about the original detention—that would not be a matter for them—hut about the proposal that detention should be extended and what the procedure should be.

As I think the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will agree, it is unrealistic to believe that one could discuss this matter hypothetically with such people in advance of the judgment. People outside Government whose views on these matters are important, would be unwilling to be drawn into hypothetical discussions. It would have been foolish to ask them, since the content of the judgment was different from what many people predicted.

We are still involved in uphill work, and I cannot yet say whether the outcome will be successful. However, we are working genuinely to see whether a judicial piece of machinery can be found. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumherg) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and other Conservative Members who have spoken in this debate were right to bring us back to the fact that this should not be a partisan matter. There will always be discussion about details, but there should be consensus on a matter such as this. The Opposition's attitude towards our reaction to terrorism is hopelessly confused and irresponsible.

During the last month, we have had terrible reminders of the power and the wickedness of terrorism. There has been the Lockerbie disaster, after which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) appeared constantly on our television screens urging the Government to do more and to be draconian. He urged the Government to tighten up on airline security by means of one measure after another. At the same time, however, the Opposition were opposing the powers of detention and exclusion that are contained in the Bill, which demonstrates a total lack of logic.

Mr. Dobson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd

No.

Furthermore, during the recess the police had to deal—thanks to the discovery of the Battersea bomb factory—with another terrorist threat that could have had equally tragic and disastrous consequences had it not been discovered. During the recess I used some of the powers of detention that are still available to me, thanks to the derogation that I announced.

I do not believe that any hon. Member, faced with the problems that were put to me, would have withheld permission to use those powers, or would feel that it would have been right, because of the Brogan judgment, to remove them and not to derogate. On reflection, the Opposition surely cannot believe that it is right—while they are pressing for tighter and tighter airport security and for more and more controls on passengers—to deprive the police or me of the powers that are necessary to save those who are at risk from terrorism.

Mr. Dobson

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Hurd

No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Huddersfield did not give way, and I do not intend to do so.

That will not do. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). As in the case of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, one would be foolish not to listen with considerable care to what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh says on these occasions.

The Government do not say that the Opposition as a whole support terrorism or sympathise with terrorists, but the problem is that they have drifted far away from the time when they had to take decisions on these matters, or had to consider the right balance to be struck. They have drifted so far that they do not come to discussions of this kind in a sensible frame of mind.

It is one of the maxims of responsible politics that those who will the end must will the means. Opposition Members have forgotten that. Everybody in this House wills the end. That is to say that everybody in this House wishes to see effective measures against terrorism. The difference on the Government side of the House is that we also will the means. Of course, that creates occasional difficult problems and the need for special powers. I do not believe that the Opposition have thought the matter through.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh thought and spoke on behalf of his supporters in the Province. [Interruption.] Yes, he lives with the problem every day. That is why his views should be listened to with respect. He does not agree that special powers are needed. I accept one of the basic points that he made, that special powers by themselves are not enough. He knows that I have never argued that they are enough. I have never argued that strengthening the security forces in Northern Ireland is enough. I agree with his point that we will not get an answer in Northern Ireland without respect by the majority and the minority in the Province for the institutions of justice and of the state in Northern Ireland. He knows the steps that have been taken by my successor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to bring that about.

To say that, of itself, the Bill will not solve the problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland is not an argument against it. One thing we have surely learnt through the passage of the years and through all the terrible events that we have lived through is that no single measure is enough. I am absolutely sure that the main proposals embodied in the Bill are necessary as part of an effective answer to terrorism. In particular, I am thinking of the renewed proposals on detention and the power of exclusion, which has been criticized—Lord Colville would have preferred us to omit it—but on rare occasions, case by case, I find it necessary for a successful effort.

We return to the heart of the matter and the heart of motion that my right hon. Friend—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46 (Allocation of time to Bills.)

The House Divided: Ayes 272, Noes 214.

Division No. 43]	[6.32 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Arbuthnot, James
Aitken, Jonathan	Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Alexander, Richard	Ashby, David
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Atkins, Robert
Allason, Rupert	Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Amess, David	Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Amos, Alan	Baldry, Tony

Batiste, Spencer	Fry, Peter
Bellingham, Henry	Gale, Roger
Bendall, Vivian	Gardiner, George
Benyon, W.	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gill, Christopher
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Glyn, Dr Alan
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Goodlad, Alastair
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Boswell, Tim	Gorst, John
Bottomley, Peter	Gow, Ian
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Green way, Harry (Ealing N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bowis, John	Gregory, Conal
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Grist, Ian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Ground, Patrick
Brazier, Julian	Grylls, Michael
Bright, Graham	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Browne, John (Winchester)	Hanley, Jeremy
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Hannam, John
Buck, Sir Antony	Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Burns, Simon	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Burt, Alistair	Harris, David
Butler, Chris	Haselhurst, Alan
Butterfill, John	Hayes, Jerry
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hayward, Robert
Carrington, Matthew	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Carttiss, Michael	Heddle, John
Cash, William	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Chapman, Sydney	Hind, Kenneth
Chope, Christopher	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Churchill, Mr	Holt, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hordern, Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Howard, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Colvin, Michael	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Conway, Derek	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Cope, Rt Hon John	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Cormack, Patrick	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Cran, James	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Critchley, Julian	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Irvine, Michael
Curry, David	Jack, Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Janman, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Jessel, Toby
Day, Stephen	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Devlin, Tim	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Dickens, Geoffrey	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dorrell, Stephen	Key, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Kilfedder, James
Dover, Den	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Dunn, Bob	Kirkhope, Timothy
Durant, Tony	Knapman, Roger
Dykes, Hugh	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Eggar, Tim	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Emery, Sir Peter	Knowles, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Latham, Michael
Evennett, David	Lawrence, Ivan
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Fallon, Michael	Lee, John (Pendle)
Favell, Tony	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lilley, Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Fishburn, John Dudley	Lord, Michael
Fookes, Dame Janet	McCrindle, Robert
Forman, Nigel	Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Forth, Eric	McLoughlin, Patrick
Fox, Sir Marcus	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Franks, Cecil	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Freeman, Roger	Major, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas	Malins, Humfrey

Mans, Keith	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Maples, John	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Marland, Paul	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Marlow, Tony	Sims, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Speller, Tony
Mellor, David	Squire, Robin
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stanbrook, Ivor
Miller, Sir Hal	Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Mills, Iain	Sumberg, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Summerson, Hugo
Mitchell, Sir David	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Moate, Roger	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Morrison, Sir Charles	Temple-Morris, Peter
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Moss, Malcolm	Thorne, Neil
Moynihan, Hon Colin	Thornton, Malcolm
Mudd, David	Thurnham, Peter
Neale, Gerrard	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Needham, Richard	Tracey, Richard
Nelson, Anthony	Tredinnick, David
Neubert, Michael	Trotter, Neville
Nicholls, Patrick	Twinn, Dr Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Oppenheim, Phillip	Waldegrave, Hon William
Page, Richard	Walden, George
Paice, James	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Patnick, Irvine	Waller, Gary
Patten, Chris (Bath)	Walters, Sir Dennis
Patten, John (Oxford W)	Ward, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Watts, John
Porter, David (Waveney)	Wells, Bowen
Portillo, Michael	Wheeler, John
Price, Sir David	Whitney, Ray
Raffan, Keith	Widdecombe, Ann
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Wiggin, Jerry
Rathbone, Tim	Wllshire, David
Redwood, John	Wolfson, Mark
Renton, Tim	Wood, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert	Woodcock, Mike
Roe, Mrs Marion	Yeo, Tim
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Rost, Peter
Sackville, Hon Tom	Tellers for the Ayes:
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Mr. David Lightbown and
Scott, Nicholas	Mr. David Maclean.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Buchan, Norman
Allen, Graham	Buckley, George J.
Alton, David	Caborn, Richard
Anderson, Donald	Callaghan, Jim
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Armstrong, Hilary	Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ashton, Joe	Canavan, Dennis
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Cartwright, John
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Barron, Kevin	Clay, Bob
Battle, John	Clelland, David
Beckett, Margaret	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Cohen, Harry
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Coleman, Donald
Bermingham, Gerald	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bidwell, Sydney	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Blair, Tony	Corbett, Robin
Blunkett, David	Corbyn, Jeremy
Boateng, Paul	Cousins, Jim
Boyes, Roland	Crowther, Stan
Bradley, Keith	Cummings, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Cunningham, Dr John
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Dalyell, Tam

Darling, Alistair	Madden, Max
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Mallon, Seamus
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Marek, Dr John
Dewar, Donald	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dixon, Don	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Dobson, Frank	Maxton, John
Doran, Frank	Meacher, Michael
Douglas, Dick	Meale, Alan
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Michael, Alun
Eadie, Alexander	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Fatchett, Derek	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Fearn, Ronald	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Morgan, Rhodri
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Flannery, Martin	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Flynn, Paul	Mowlam, Marjorie
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Mullin, Chris
Foster, Derek	Murphy, Paul
Fraser, John	Nellist, Dave
Galbraith, Sam	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	O'Brien, William
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	O'Neill, Martin
George, Bruce	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Parry, Robert
Golding, Mrs Llin	Patchett, Terry
Gordon, Mildred	Pike, Peter L.
Gould, Bryan	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Graham, Thomas	Prescott, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Primarolo, Dawn
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Radice, Giles
Grocott, Bruce	Randall, Stuart
Hardy, Peter	Redmond, Martin
Harman, Ms Harriet	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Reid, Dr John
Heffer, Eric S.	Richardson, Jo
Hinchliffe, David	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Robertson, George
Holland, Stuart	Robinson, Geoffrey
Home Robertson, John	Rogers, Allan
Hood, Jimmy	Rooker, Jeff
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)	Rowlands, Ted
Howells, Geraint	Ruddock, Joan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Sedgemore, Brian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Sheerman, Barry
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Short, Clare
Ingram, Adam	Skinner, Dennis
Janner, Greville	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Jones, leuan (Ynys MÔn)	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Snape, Peter
Kennedy, Charles	Soley, Clive
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil	Spearing, Nigel
Lambie, David	Steel, Rt Hon David
Lamond, James	Steinberg, Gerry
Leighton, Ron	Stott, Roger
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Strang, Gavin
Lewis, Terry	Straw, Jack
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Loyden, Eddie	Turner, Dennis
McAllion, John	Vaz, Keith
McAvoy, Thomas	Wall, Pat
McCartney, Ian	Wallace, James
McFall, John	Walley, Joan
McGrady, Eddie	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Wareing, Robert N.
McKelvey, William	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
McLeish, Henry	Wigley, Dafydd
Maclennan, Robert	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
McNamara, Kevin	Wilson, Brian
McTaggart, Bob	Winnick, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey	Tellers for the Noes:
Worthington, Tony	Mr. Ken Eastham and
	Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

c692
1. Committee 82 words
c692
2. Report and Third Reading 175 words
c692
3. Procedure in Standing Committee 147 words
c692
4. Conclusion of proceedings in Committee 26 words
c692
5. Dilatory Motions 46 words
cc692-3
6. Private business 102 words
c693
7. Conclusion of proceedings 421 words
c693
8. Supplemental orders 149 words
cc693-4
9. Saving 78 words
c694
10. Recommittal 76 words
c694
11. Interpretation 110 words
c740
12. Committee 81 words
c740
13. Report and Third Reading 172 words
c740
14. Procedure in Standing Committee 143 words
c740
15. Conclusion of proceedings in Committee 25 words
c740
16. Dilatory Motions 46 words
c740
17. Private business 98 words
cc740-1
18. Conclusion of proceedings 419 words
cc741-2
19. Supplemental orders 150 words
c742
20. Saving 75 words
c742
21. Recommittal 76 words
c742
22. Interpretation 109 words