POWER TO STOP AND SEARCH PEDESTRIANS

HC Deb 02 April 1996 vol 275 cc257-99 10.22 pm

Mr. Michael

I beg to move amendment No. 36, page 1, line 6, after '(1)' insert— `Subject to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (11) or otherwise,'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 47, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'cause' and insert 'obtain the approval of'.

No. 48, in page 2, line 15, leave out from 'State' to `given' in line 16 and insert 'before it is'.

No. 52, in page 2, line 35, at end insert— '(11) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and such other persons or bodies as he deems appropriate, issue guidance on the sensitivity with which the powers contained in section 13A and this section should be exercised and the circumstances in which the powers should be used.'.

Mr. Michael

I am grateful for the opportunity to move the amendment standing in my name and those of my right hon. Friends. The purpose of amendment No. 36 is to provide the type of reassurance that we have sought in supporting the legislation as to the way in which the powers will be exercised. I hope that the Minister will welcome that opportunity, as the amendment addresses some of people's understandable concerns about the way in which such legislation may be used.

It is always possible to misuse legislation, but Parliament's intention must be clear, as must the safeguards that are built into the various Acts to which I referred during Second Reading. Amendment No. 36 would make the power outlined in clause 1 exercisable, subject to guidance issued by the Home Secretary. Clause 1 extends the powers already available under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to the searching of pedestrians, and contains also the narrower power to stop pedestrians and search anything carried by them.

Amendment No. 36 acts as a hook for amendment No. 52, which says: The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and such other persons or bodies as he deems appropriate, issue guidance on the sensitivity with which the powers in section 13A and this section should be exercised and the circumstances in which the powers should be used.

The amendment raises a number of important issues, including the matter of consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Chief police officers and superintendents, who often oversee operational matters and are sensitive to the needs of the area in which they have oversight of police officers, are increasingly sensitive about the downside of certain powers and the dangers when those powers are perceived by members of the public as being used in an inappropriate way.

It seems to me that chief police officers, superintendents of police and the police generally will welcome an assurance from the Home Secretary that it is his intention to consult them and to listen to them about the ways in which the powers contained in the Bill are used. The amendment would also give him the power to issue guidance on the sensitivity that should be shown in the use of the powers in section 13A as well as their extension in the Bill. Finally, the amendment would allow the Home Secretary to give clear guidance on the circumstances in which the powers should be used.

The Home Secretary has stated—in the Chamber today and yesterday and in seeking to win support for the Bill—that it is his intention that the powers should be used firmly when they are needed, but with sensitivity and in a balanced way. It is important that we achieve that balance. We all want the police to act as quickly as possible when there is a threat to public safety or when certain suspicious circumstances require police action, but we also want the powers to be used in such a way that they are not brought into disrepute and that doubt is not cast on the way in which they are used.

That is slightly at odds with the earlier comment by one of my colleagues that the powers of the police are used with a great deal more sensitivity than was the case some years ago. For instance, the Metropolitan police exercise the power to stop and search people a great deal more sensitively than used to be the case. As one who worked in an area with a high proportion of ethnic minorities—the docks area of Cardiff—I have seen a positive development in the sensitivity with which the police try to understand the motivation of those who live in the communities in which they serve and seek to maintain law and order. That is a welcome development, over a period of time, and it should be encouraged. We believe that it should have the weight of the Home Secretary behind it, and I hope that we shall receive such an assurance about the use of the powers in the Bill as a result of the debate that I am introducing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made some references—to which the Home Secretary responded yesterday—to the monitoring of the way in which the powers are used. The Home Secretary referred specifically to the way in which the powers are used in relation to people from ethnic minorities. I said earlier that I do not believe that it has been a problem in respect of the powers introduced in the 1994 Act and I do not believe that it will be a specific problem in respect of the Bill, but it has been a problem in the past, when powers to stop vehicles entering the City of London, as well as those being used in certain communities in London, gave rise to a great deal of concern, particularly among young people and the black community.

We believe that the amendments to the 1994 Act and the parallel provisions extending powers in the Bill have the right sort of safeguards. They require instigation by senior police officers, and accounting to the Home Secretary for the use of those powers. That provides reassurance. However, wider reassurance will be forthcoming if the Home Secretary's promises in relation to monitoring are spelt out in the debate.

It is important to get the balance right. We must provide the powers that the police need to be able to tackle the threat of terrorism and to act before things happen; but we must also ensure that the relevant powers are exercised in the most balanced way possible, so that the public can be reassured about the intentions of Ministers and the House.

10.30 pm

Mr. Soley

The issue of guidance is important. The question has always been about more than civil liberties, important though they are. It is also about the way in which we respond to terrorist incidents. The last thing that we want to do is turn London into a mirror image of Belfast. Hon. Members need to remind themselves that that is one of the aims of terrorism. It is therefore important that the powers be used cautiously. That is why I oppose the use of the powers in too widespread an area.

I am not clear, after reading the Bill, whether it is intended that the defined areas would be very limited. For instance, the Metropolitan police, at a senior level, could decide that the whole of the Metropolitan police area should be such a defined area. Searches could then be carried out anywhere in that area. I assume that the same would apply to the West Midlands police or other police forces.

If the powers are to be used at all, they should be used in a more confined way—which is what I assume the Home Office intends. I presume that it does not want a blanket approach to an area the size of London if that can be avoided. If the police believe that a terrorist is transporting a weapon between two points in central London, those areas should be cleared and duly defined. That is entirely understandable, but using the power in a blunderbuss fashion will present an image to the world of London becoming like Belfast during the worst of the violence.

I urge the Government to look closely at the matter. The guidelines would be very useful if they stipulated that the areas concerned were to be as small as possible. Only three conditions stop this power being a sus law: the geographical confinement, the chronological confinement, and the necessity for authorisation by a senior police officer. Loosening the restrictions and allowing the boundaries to encompass an entire police force's area—although I would understand that in principle—will, I sincerely hope, not be the practice.

Mr. Canavan

If my amendments Nos. 47 and 48 were accepted, a person giving an authorisation under this proposed section would have to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State before that approval was given.

Clause 1 as it stands would enable an assistant chief constable to authorise searches within a designated area for a specified time of up to 28 days. Within that area, police officers would then be able to stop pedestrians and search them and any baggage that they might be carrying. Authorisation of the power to search pedestrians would require confirmation within 48 hours by the Home Secretary.

I firmly believe that the prior approval of the Home Secretary would be an advantage. In an intervention in the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading, I asked why there was no need for a warrant before the issue of the authorisation by the senior police officer. I am afraid that I did not get a satisfactory explanation. I understand that, under the provisions of the Bill, a senior police officer can simply give an oral authorisation—it does not even have to be in writing in the first instance. I find it strange that the police are able to issue such authorisation without any approval from a magistrate by way of a warrant or without any approval being expressed by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland or any of the junior Ministers and senior civil servants in the Home Department or the Scottish Office, as the case may be.

At present, the authorisation would be the decision of the senior police officer. I understand that that senior officer would have to be the chief constable, a deputy chief constable or an assistant chief constable. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary when replying will be able to tell us how the Government envisage that working in practice. How has it worked in practice already in Northern Ireland, where such powers have already been implemented? Does the Home Secretary envisage a situation in which a police officer or police officers on the spot may observe an incident or situation and consider that some emergency powers may be needed to deal with it?

In such circumstances, would the police officer or officers then telephone or radio the headquarters? Presumably, the chief constable or the deputy or assistant chief constable would then decide, in the light of the circumstances, whether the authorisation was necessary. If he considered it to be necessary, presumably he would issue the authorisation. Then, and only then, would he be required to communicate with the Home Office or with the Scottish Office.

In this day and age, when communications are very fast and when a Minister or a senior civil servant is on duty who can, if necessary, get the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland out of bed in the event of an emergency, I do not see why there should not be at least some obligation on the chief constable to attempt to communicate with the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State and to seek his approval. I admit that perhaps my amendment is too strongly worded because it would require the chief constable to obtain approval, but the Bill does not even contain an obligation on the chief constable to attempt to communicate with either the Home Office or the Scottish Office.

If the spirit of my amendments were accepted by the House and by the Government, that would be an improvement on the provisions. The sooner the Home Secretary is informed about such matters and his approval sought, the better. I am not saying that the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland are paragons of virtue or that they are adequate protectors of human rights, but at least they are accountable in some way to Parliament and my amendments would give the Bill a greater degree of parliamentary accountability. I commend them to the Committee.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)

Many people will wake up tomorrow morning and feel alarmed, dismayed and let down that the Labour party in Parliament has connived in such a fashion at the passing of the Bill. At the heart of many people's concerns will be the stop-and-search proposals in the clause. The Government and my Front-Bench colleagues have argued that the proposals are quite different from the provisions of the sus law and from existing stop-and-search provisions. But, in essence, the proposals are very similar to the sus law in that they give the police the power—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own speech in my own way. I have no doubt that my speech will not be supported by the Home Secretary; I should be alarmed if it were.

The proposals will give the police arbitrary powers to stop and search people on the basis of wholly subjective judgments. The old sus law was perhaps the issue that caused my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and me to come into politics, and I have no stomach now in 1996 for voting for any measure that in any way brings back legislation which as a young person I campaigned against.

Mr. Straw

My hon. Friend is wholly wrong in suggesting that a power with such safeguards to stop and search someone in the street is in any sense comparable to the sus law. As she knows, the whole point about the sus law, apart from the fact that there were no safeguards about arrests, was that it led to the commission of an offence for which people were either routinely fined or imprisoned. There is no suggestion whatever of that happening to someone who just submits to what amounts to an outer body search that is no more onerous than the search that, every day, some visitors to the Palace of Westminster have to endure.

Ms Abbott

I understand what my hon. Friend says and his motivation for saying it, but these provisions are very similar to those under the sus law. If somebody who looks like my hon. Friend and someone who looks like my brother, my cousin or my son walks past a policeman in the City of London, I know who that policeman will stop and search. It is the arbitrary and subjective nature of the judgments that the police will necessarily make under such powers that give rise to the concern of many people.

As a very young woman down from Cambridge, I and many other people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South, fought long and hard to have the sus law scrapped. It is sad that at this time of night, under a grotesque, truncated procedure, we are proposing to bring it back in some shape or form.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

The hon. Lady might direct herself with advantage to a speech during proceedings on the timetable motion by an expert on the sus law. If she does that, I think that she will reconsider her remarks.

Ms Abbott

In my field I am an expert on the sus law. When the police are given these powers—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Lady may be an expert on the sus law, but the amendment is not about that; it is about guidance and the hon. Lady should address that.

Ms Abbott

I shall return to the issue of guidance. Guidance is important because, in essence, the proposals are very similar to the sus law. The group in society who suffered under the sus law will suffer under the proposals because, in every case and in every situation where the police are given such powers, we know the sort of judgments that they make. That is why I support the amendment. At the very least it would offer some guidance or some check or monitoring of the activities that will take place under the clause.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, many people will feel let down that the Labour party has connived at the passing of the clause. Many of us do not believe that the police need such powers in practice. I am arguing for the limited guidance provided in the amendment because I believe that some Opposition Members need to understand something: although it is impossible to out-Howard the Home Secretary—as I am sure he will be flattered to hear, there is no political position to the right of him—if we continue to connive at legislation of this nature, even with the guidance in the amendment, the Home Secretary will simply move further and further to the right. He will entrap us in legislation that is increasingly ill thought out and illiberal, and all that we shall have done is let down our natural supporters for no electoral gain.

10.45 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made a disgraceful speech, which paid no attention to the earlier debate on the timetable motion. [HoN. MEMBERS: "She was not here."] I do not believe that the hon. Lady was present for that debate.

Ms Abbott

I watched it on television.

Mr. Bottomley

If the hon. Lady had watched it on television she would have heard what was said, and would not have said what is contradicted by the evidence. What has happened in the 15 years since the sus law went will not be overcome by clause 1, regardless of whether it is amended. I view this as a probing amendment, and look forward to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has to say.

We should recognise that those who need protection from terrorism are ordinary people—the sort of people whose husbands were killed by bombers in South Quay. Some people—not just the IRA but, potentially, other terrorists—are dedicated to turning women into widows and children into orphans. As the hon. Lady will have seen if she was watching the earlier debates on television, in some parts of the United Kingdom many of these provisions are already effective. We must ask ourselves, as many did in the earlier debates, whether we should exclude Great Britain from powers that are available to the police in Northern Ireland. That does not seem to me to be bringing back the sus law.

People in their cars can be stopped and searched but those getting off a bus cannot. Given the events that proved fatal to a person at the Aldwych, should we ignore the lessons? Should we not allow the police to stop someone getting off a bus? The House should realise that ordinary people throughout the country—whatever the colour or their skin, eyes or hair—support such a move. There is no reason to believe that the Bill would bring back any of the harmful effects of the sus law.

I believe that we can trust those on both Front Benches. If both sides are willing to say that they see good reason for these measures, with or without extra guidance, other hon. Members must oppose them with good reason. What we heard from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington was not good reason but prejudice. In some contexts, prejudice works in the wrong way. Changes are needed in the police services, for instance. I believe that the colour of people's skins still affects the number of times they are stopped—for example, most people who are stopped on Vauxhall bridge are black, and I do not think that that is right. I do not believe that skin colour should determine whether someone joins the police, enters Parliament, goes to prison or is in or out of work. All that needs challenging. The Bill's provisions are not like that, however, and I feel that the hon. Lady's speech featured the worst kind of stereotyping.

Ms Abbott

I do indeed have a prejudice. I have a prejudice against my party's following the Home Secretary down an increasingly ill-thought-out and illiberal path.

Mr. Bottomley

I think that the hon. Lady has done enough damage to her own case by her own words.

Mr. Bennett

I want to ask the Home Secretary for a little more information about the guidance which, I think, he has promised to issue. It is important for him to understand that, sadly, in this country, the natural reaction of too many people, especially young people, is not to assist the police but either to ignore them or to turn a blind eye to their activities. It is very important that the Home Secretary ensures that the clause does not increase alienation.

I put to the Home Secretary the difficult circumstances of people who commit a minor crime by carrying in their pocket an illegal substance—soft drugs of some type—about which most people, and certainly nowadays the police, do not get particularly excited. The problem is that, often, when the police officer decides to search such an individual, that person becomes extremely frightened about the fact that that illegal substance is in his pocket and perhaps behaves in a very silly way. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear in the guidance that, although the police cannot ignore the fact that they have come across that substance when they carry out the search, such a discovery will be considered sensibly.

It is clear that in some parts of the country, when individuals are found to have small quantities of drugs that are clearly for their personal use, the police use their powers of caution sympathetically. I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is important that the guidance is put across sympathetically, otherwise it will create alienation among a group of young people who are already not particularly sympathetic to the police. I hope that the Home Secretary's guidance not only does not condone illegality but does not put something very minor in the same category as the very serious issues with which we are dealing.

Mr. Corbyn

On the issue of guidance, the methods of searching and the methods that will be used to stop people, I hope that the Home Secretary realises that there is an awful lot in what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said about the perception of many young people, especially young black people in London, of the police and police powers. I, too, was part of the campaign to get rid of the sus law and I remember very well how that law worked. Large numbers of young black people were stopped, in some cases charged and in some cases convicted, but often simply stopped, intimidated and harassed while going about their normal lawful business in their home areas. Many people expressed to me last night and today the fear that giving the police unlimited powers of stopping and searching on the streets of London would lead to a return to such a feeling among young people towards the police force in London.

Three weeks ago, I had occasion to cross Waterloo bridge by car late on a Friday night—at about 12.30 or 1 o'clock in the morning—when a major stop-and-search operation was going on. Police cars were everywhere, armed units were standing on each side of the bridge, people were being questioned, not very many of whom were crossing the bridge on foot, most cars were being looked at and many were being stopped. As I drove past—I was not stopped—I noticed that more than half the people in the cars who were being questioned were black. Late at night on the streets of London, young black people in cars tend to get stopped and questioned and their cars tend to be searched. That tendency is later reflected in prosecution figures, and so on.

This morning, I was at the Camden Irish centre where its manager told me—I believe him—that young Irish people, many of them poor, and unfortunately homeless in London, feel harassed by the police when they are looking for somewhere to live. They are looking for a home, a room. The manager said—I believe him—that the reintroduction of police powers to stop and search people on the streets will lead to an unwarranted intrusion into those people's lives. He felt that large numbers of them would be stopped over the next few weeks when the power is introduced because London is, of course, a designated area. One must link the measure to the prevention of terrorism Act. Will the Home Secretary explain this point to me—if a young person is stopped one night under the stop-and-search procedure and the police officer decides that there is something suspicious about him, do the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 disappear? Do the provisions of the PTA—including the power to take that person into custody, hold him for 48 hours without access to a solicitor and, on the authority of the Home Secretary, hold him for up to seven days without a solicitor—then apply?

For far too long, constituents have rung me up over the weekend to tell me that they do not know what has happened to a son or daughter who was due to come over from Belfast or Dublin or who was travelling around. After a Kafkaesque series of telephone calls, one is able to elucidate from somebody that that person is being held under the provisions of the PTA. Thousands of people have been held under the provisions of the PTA in the past 20 years. Very few have been prosecuted as a result, but none has forgotten the experience of being taken into a police station and told that he or she has no rights of access to a solicitor or advice. That is the fear that large numbers of people—particularly within the Irish community in London—have about this draconian legislation.

Mr. Howard

I shall begin by giving the House the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I certainly intend to issue guidance on the use of these powers following consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others. While that is in preparation, I shall issue immediate provisional guidance, and I will also advise the police that the relevant PACE code for stop and search should be applied to all stop-and-search provisions in the Bill. The police have told me that they will apply the PACE code voluntarily until the new provisions are formally brought within its scope. I hope therefore that that assurance satisfies the hon. Gentleman, and that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Corbyn

Will the Home Secretary answer the point that I made concerning what happens to a person who is subsequently arrested under the provisions of the PTA? Do the PACE provisions disappear or do they remain in force? In other words, does a person have access to a solicitor for the stop and search if necessary, despite what might happen under the provisions of the PTA?

Mr. Howard

I was going to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point later, but since he has raised it again, I shall deal with it now. These provisions make absolutely no difference to the interrelationship between the provisions of PACE and the existing provisions of the PTA. If a person is arrested under the provisions of the PTA—because there is a suspicion that he is engaged in the terrorist activities specified in that Act—obviously all the provisions of the PTA apply. If, on the other hand, he is arrested under the provisions of PACE, that Act will apply. That has been part of our law, at least since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was put on the statute book. It is not affected in the slightest by the provisions of the legislation.

I turn now to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The guidance to which I have just referred will, I believe, be sufficient to ensure that there is no need for the Secretary of State to grant initial authorisation for the use of the powers. The use of the powers will be triggered by immediate operational reasons, so I believe that it is right that the decision to use them should be made by a senior police officer. The need for the Secretary of State to confirm that authorisation within 48 hours and the prior issue of the guidance to which I have referred are adequate safeguards.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the area that will be designated by the police will vary according to the circumstances. It is not something in respect of which I would wish to limit the discretion of the police. There may well be circumstances, such as those identified by the hon. Gentleman, where the police have specific intelligence that is closely related to a specific location, which will enable them to use their designation powers in a limited area.

On the other hand, there may well be a general terrorist alert which will not be specific to a particular area and which will cause the police to designate the whole of their police area for the purpose of using these powers. Indeed, it could be—and has been—the whole of the Metropolitan police area. I do not propose to issue guidance that would inhibit the discretion of the police in the way in which they exercise their designation power. I believe that they will use common sense in their approach to the matter and that, if there is no need to designate the whole of their area, they will not do so. That is an entirely proper matter to be left to the police and I see no need to inhibit their discretion in the guidance that I propose to issue.

11 pm

I do not propose to deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I have nothing to add to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), with which I entirely agree.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked what would happen if the police, in the exercise of their powers under the Bill, came across evidence of what he described as a minor crime being committed. That will be dealt with by the police, using their discretion, in the way in which they would normally deal with evidence of the commission of such crimes. I do not believe that they should approach these matters in a different way because they happen to come across evidence as a result of the use of the powers that they have been given under the Bill.

The police have discretion in how to proceed in relation to such matters generally. Sometimes they regard it as appropriate to issue a caution and sometimes they regard it as appropriate to prosecute. The police are perfectly capable of exercising that discretion generally. I see no need to inhibit that discretion by virtue of the fact that they will have come across the relevant evidence in the exercise of the powers that the Bill will confer on them.

Mr. Bennett

Does not the Home Secretary perceive that there is a problem, especially for young people? If a young person knows that he has an illegal substance in his pocket, if an attempt is made by a police officer to stop and search him and if he refuses, resists or does a bunk, under the Bill he will be subject to a fairly serious penalty. However, the likelihood is that, if young people are searched and a substance is found, they will be subject to a much more minor penalty.

Mr. Howard

I think that the hon. Gentleman does the younger generation an injustice. Most young people, if they were stopped by a police officer and told that the area in which they were present had been designated by a senior police officer as an area in which special powers were available to the police because there was a terrorist threat in that area, would readily understand the position and would not react as the hon. Gentleman suggests. His characterisation of young people does them a serious injustice.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

I want to follow up my earlier point, with which there was a good deal of sympathy. There may be a provision for stopping and searching people because there are reasonable grounds to suspect that terrorist activity is around and, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, young people may have on them a substance that would not otherwise have been discovered. I am thinking of drugs, for example, and I am not suggesting theft. That substance might not normally have been discovered or the people involved might not normally have got more than a caution.

Could my right hon. and learned Friend draw to the attention of ACPO the possibility that if police officers exercising powers for one serious purpose discover something that normally would not draw a great deal of attention, it would be wise for the organisation to issue its own guidance? The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—I leave her speech out of account for the moment—referred to the fears about the Bill. Such guidance may stop us ending up with an analysis showing that young people, most of whom are black and some of whom may be involved with illicit substances, find themselves at the wrong end of powers that are directed at potentially far more serious crimes.

Mr. Howard

I am afraid that I will not give the police such guidance. First, I do not believe that they need it. They are perfectly capable of exercising their discretion in the normal way. Secondly, I believe that it would send a most unfortunate signal on how the Government regard the use of illicit substances. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I have no intention of issuing such guidance.

I think that I have dealt with all the points that were made during the debate. I hope that it will be possible for the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Falkirk, West not to press their amendments.

Mr. Michael

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for indicating that he will provide the sort of guidance that we seek and that he will seek sensible advice to ensure that the use of these powers commands support and does not run into the problems that hon. Members who have criticised the provisions have feared. In the light of his assurances, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bennett

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'expedient' and insert 'reasonable'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 39, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'expedient' and insert 'necessary'.

No. 17, in clause 4, page 6, line 5, leave out 'expedient' and insert 'reasonable'.

No. 18, in clause 5, page 6, line 31, leave out `expedient' and insert 'reasonable'.

Mr. Bennett

This is a probing amendment that refers to the use of word "expedient", which I think occurs three times in the Bill. I should like the Home Secretary to explain why he chose to use the word "expedient" rather than "reasonable". Much legislation uses the term "reasonable". There is reasonable evidence that the courts and the police know how to interpret it, but the word "expedient" is rarely used legally. Apart from anything else, it is a fairly emotive term.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) got me two dictionary definitions of "expedient". "Chambers" defines it as: profitable or convenient rather than fair or just".

That is not especially helpful. The "Shorter Oxford Dictionary" defines it as: Useful or politic as opp. to right or just".

Two of that word's uses in the Bill refer to a senior police officer, who may well be able to follow the guidance easily. It would be better to use words that have been used in previous legislation and are well understood rather than introducing a new and emotive word. I am especially concerned about its use in clause 4, which is dealt with by amendment No. 17, where it refers to the use of a cordon. There, it is not a senior officer who must interpret it, but, in certain circumstances, a constable. There is more difficulty with that. Earlier in the debate the need to get a warrant to search premises was mentioned. Once a cordon has been put round, there is no need to get a search warrant. I well understand that if a cordon is set up because there is a suspicion that there is a bomb in the area, it would be stupid to have to get a search warrant.

However, the power is not restricted to the point at which there is immediate threat of injury to individuals; it goes wider than that. I can imagine that a police constable might feel it expedient to put a cordon around a group of buildings so that he and other officers could search them, rather than going through the rather more complicated process of getting a warrant.

Will the Home Secretary explain why it was necessary to put an emotive term such as "expedient" in the Bill rather than picking something much better understood and, in my view, more reasonable—the word "reasonable"?

Mr. Peter Bottomley

In my dictionary the first three words used to define the word "expedient" are "wise, prudent, advisable". That seems to me perfectly sufficient. I also checked on the definition of the word "reasonable", which was "rational, acceptable, proper, sufficient". I think that to be wise, prudent and advisable is just as good as that.

Mr. Canavan

I support amendment No. 1, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but, with respect, I think that my amendment No. 39 is even better.

The Home Secretary has claimed that the powers in the Bill are necessary in the campaign against terrorism. If they are all that necessary, the Bill should state that they cannot be used unless their use is a matter of necessity rather than of expediency. My amendment therefore proposes that the word "expedient" be replaced by the word "necessary" so that an authorisation could not be issued unless it appeared to a senior police officer that it was necessary to do so in order to prevent acts of terrorism".

Mr. Howard

I was immensely attracted to the approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and I am sorry that I have not followed his example and looked up the dictionary definitions of the words. The truth, as is usual in such matters, is much more mundane. The reason for the presence of the word "expedient" in the Bill has, I confess, nothing to do with the attractive definition to which my hon. Friend referred. The word appears in the Bill because it is the word used in the existing section 13A and elsewhere in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It is tried and proved, and has stood the test of time.

Contrary to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), "expedient" is far from a new word. As I said earlier in our proceedings, in framing the additional powers we have sought to follow as closely as possible the approach in the existing prevention of terrorism Act. The use of that word is an example of that approach.

In resisting the amendments for that reason, I do not, of course, want to give the impression that chief police officers will be able to use the powers either unreasonably—to deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—or unnecessarily—to deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The police are well aware of the need to exercise the safeguards with sensitivity and care, and as an additional safeguard, authorisation of the use of the new stop-and-search powers is subject to the Secretary of State's confirmation. Any unreasonable exercise might be open to challenge by judicial review.

In my view, therefore, the amendments are unnecessary, unreasonable and undesirable, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Bennett

In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I shall not press the amendment at this stage, although I am disappointed that he still has not replied to my question about whether the power could provide a short cut in order to avoid the need to go to a magistrate for a warrant. In view of the shortage of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McNamara

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 16, leave out from second "for" to "the" in line 17.

This is a probing amendment. I do not understand why subsection (2) should not merely state that a constable may stop a pedestrian and search him, or anything carried by him, for articles of a kind which could be used for the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism.

I do not understand why the words for a purpose connected with are necessary because I should have thought that the intention behind the subsection was already clear. That is why I suggest that the other words should be deleted. Why have they been included?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope)

There is a straightforward explanation and reason for their inclusion.

I do not propose to accept the amendment because the power to search pedestrians will be based on the existing power to search passengers in vehicles. The clause, as drafted, mirrors the existing section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which has proved to work well. We therefore see no reason to adopt a different formulation, despite the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. On that basis, we ask him to accept the current wording and to withdraw his amendment.

11.15 pm

Mr. McNamara

I accept the explanation that has been given. It reveals one of the problems caused by the procedures governing the passage of the Bill: because we have been able to study it for only such a short time, we have been unable to refer to what has gone before. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Canavan

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, leave out lines 19 to 21.

The Second Deputy Chairman

With this it will convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 1, line 21, at end insert— on any particular person or in any thing carried by any particular person.".

No. 35, in page 2, line 46 at end insert— on any particular person or in anything carried by any particular person.".

Mr. Canavan

The amendment would delete subsection (3) of clause 1, which states: A constable may exercise his powers"—

to stop and search people— whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles

of a kind that could be used for a purpose, as stated in subsection (2), connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of … acts of terrorism.

Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the sus laws. I am not an expert in those laws because they do not apply to Scotland, but I assume that the word "sus" is short for suspicion or suspect. I assume that the draconian sus laws were used to stop and search, and possibly apprehend, people simply because they looked suspicious.

The power proposed in the Bill is even worse, because the constable does not even need grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of a particular kind. In the absence of grounds for suspicion, that officer can still stop and search a person.

What articles has the Minister in mind? Presumably they are items such as guns and trigger mechanisms for setting off bombs. How has similar legislation operated in Northern Ireland, where it has been on the statute book for many years? I hear from some of my contacts in Northern Ireland that the exercise of that power has not been very successful and that its use or abuse has alienated large sections of the community. Can the Minister offer us an attempted justification for those powers by citing experience of their operation in Northern Ireland? What has been discovered on the person of pedestrians as a result of police searches? What acts of terrorism and other terrible crimes have been avoided as a result of the powers that have been given to the police?

The powers in the Bill are wide ranging. If this subsection is not deleted, the powers will be so wide that, within a designated area, a police officer in uniform could stop anyone going about lawful business, irrespective of any suspicion. The powers are far too comprehensive—in fact, they are so wide ranging that they could be counter-productive and they could alienate large sections of the community.

Earlier, I said that in the campaign against terrorism it is essential to have good relations between the police and the community. If there is a poor relationship between the police and the community, or if large sections of the community distrust the police, the police will not get the intelligence and the support from the community that they require in the campaign against terrorism.

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of terrorism. If he is looking for those who will supply the police with information, he must look at terrorists and not at those whom he believes may be offended if they are wrongly stopped and searched by the police. In that respect, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused as to the source of intelligence in the first place.

Mr. Canavan

No, I am not confused at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that in the campaign against terrorists it is absolutely essential to alienate them, as it were, from the community so that they do not get any direct or indirect support from it. The use and abuse of draconian powers could make a large number of people, particularly young people, feel that they are being harassed and intimidated by the police—in fact, such powers may act as a recruiting measure for some of the terrorist forces. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to see that happen.

My modest amendment—which would remove subsection (3)—would help in that situation. It would be obligatory for the police officer who is considering stopping and searching a person to have grounds for suspecting the presence of the articles referred to in the clause.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

By analogy, the fears of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) are misplaced. I know that he is a pedagogue of great distinction, but I do not know whether his background is in science. In one part of his speech he sought to prove a negative—that cannot be done.

I refer to the power of a police officer to stop someone in a vehicle and to ask them to undertake a breath test. During my time at the Department of Transport there were 1 million breath tests and not a single person who was stopped complained—not one. In such a case, people's livelihoods may be at stake, so one should not worry too much about leaving these powers in the Bill.

If we require a police officer to believe that an individual has a specified article on them or in their outer garments, we will lose the whole purpose of the provision. We allow a person who is in a vehicle to be searched, and the same sort of provision should apply to a person who is not in a vehicle. Otherwise, the message is given to someone who wants to commission, or take part in the preparation of, or commit a terrorist offence that they only have to get out of their vehicle and the police, in effect, cannot touch them. That strikes me as peculiar. If people are not offended by the powers that the police have with respect to vehicles, they should not be offended by the powers that the Bill would give the police with respect to pedestrians in Great Britain.

The hon. Member for Falkirk, West asked how many times material had been found on pedestrians in Northern Ireland. That is an interesting question, but it should not determine what happens now. We were given a clear warning by the events of the Aldwych, let alone by what may have been part of the preparation for the South Quay bomb, which would not necessarily have all come on the low loader. We should learn from the experience that people have suffered and try to ensure that we fill the gaps in the powers of the police.

Mr. Beith

Amendments Nos. 6 and 35 appear in my name. I do not accept that we should delete subsection (3), so I have suggested the addition of some words for clarification.

We are trying to make it possible for a police officer to carry out a general search in circumstances where, because of the threat of terrorist action, it seems advisable to ensure that no one can enter an area in possession of something with which they might commit a terrorist act. Therefore, we propose to remove from a police officer the need to have a specific reason to believe that the person whom he intends to search is carrying something; otherwise it is not a general search. Of course, he is carrying out the search only because someone above him in the hierarchy has reason to believe that a terrorist offence may be committed in the area; otherwise he would not have authorised the general search.

That is why I have suggested that we should free the police officer from the obligation to have grounds for suspecting the presence of articles on any one of the people whom he decides to search. The object is to ensure that the absence of intelligence information suggesting that a particular person has something in his possession does not preclude an officer from carrying out a search that is based more generally on intelligence that something may be afoot in the locality.

I have suggested this wording because it would bring to bear that precise obligation in clause 1—that none of this should happen unless it is suspected that a terrorist offence may be committed and that someone is carrying such material about with them, but that an officer need not have reason to believe that every person he searches might be in that position. My wording assists that understanding of the provision. It may be technically unnecessary, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is the intention of the clause.

We are now more than halfway through the time allocated for the Committee stage. Hon. Members have been brief and succinct in their speeches, but the fact that we are still in the middle of the amendments on the first clause and that we have many more clauses to discuss shows that we have been set an impossible task tonight.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

In relation to amendment No. 5, relating to clause 1(3), one of the difficulties about the operation of this type of power is that one must try to understand on what basis a person is stopped and searched. If it is not on the basis of intelligence that would automatically lead to suspicion, it is either a random search or not.

The first question we should ask is, what does "random" mean? Is it every fifth car, every second car, every tenth car? What is it? Is it just taking the opportunity of establishing a presence in that area, through which those who are or may be carrying illegal weapons might move very quickly? From the experience of the north of Ireland, the people involved in such activity are adept at reading the random situation.

The second, more important, question is, at what stage after a vehicle or person has been searched does the random element translate into suspicion? There is a rake's progress in relation to that. Those who are young are much more likely to be searched than those who are not young. For those who are young and have other young people—especially young men—travelling in their car, the possibility of being searched increases substantially. I see it happen every day of the week where I live: one can be sure that the cars carrying young men from building sites will be pulled over to the side of the road and that they will be searched. It is not simply young people travelling together who are likely to be stopped and searched: people with Irish accents will almost certainly be subjected to the powers in the legislation. I pose this relevant question: if a man and his wife were driving in their car and four young Irishmen who had just left work on a building site were driving behind them, which car would be most likely to be subjected to a search without any reasonable suspicion?

11.30 pm

Leaving aside Irish accents, what about those young people who are a different colour? A constable may be tempted to apply the powers in the legislation not because there is reasonable suspicion regarding any element of terrorism, but because of other factors pertaining to the community. There is the potential for a combustible and very dangerous situation. The stop-and-search power and the power to detain have caused the most problems of all those which apply in the north of Ireland. The generation subjected to those powers—young people who have never known a time when such powers did not exist—is most susceptible to the terrorist propaganda. In many instances, they have suffered at the hands of this sort of legislation and they have turned towards terrorism—or at least acquiesced to terrorism—as a result.

Mr. Trimble

I believe that the hon. Gentleman may be erring in drawing his comparisons, as the circumstances in south Armagh may not be quite the same as those in London. The social and political attitudes evinced by the populations of those two areas may be different also. He may not have heard the figures that were given earlier in the debate regarding searches conducted under section 13A—and the provision is an extension along similar lines. We were told that under that section 8,000 vehicles had been searched with scarcely any complaints. The hon. Gentleman's fears may be a little overdone.

Mr. Mallon

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that the same attitudes do not apply in south Armagh and in London—and long may that remain so. However, I assure the House that this sort of legislation is the surest way of promoting and creating a similar reaction in London. Year after year and decade after decade, I have been struck by the idea that we are lucky in the north of Ireland because sooner or later we shall be in a position to abolish that sort of emergency legislation. However, we should not imagine that the residual effects will not be felt in this country. The biggest single danger—to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention—is that the legislation will be exploited here for various social reasons, including race, colour and class. I see it every day. We are lucky because, sooner or later, when we have the good sense to reach an agreement, there will be an end to the conflict in the north of Ireland and there will be an end to the emergency provisions Act. We shall then have the opportunity to make sure that Britain does not have to live with such legislation as its residue never leaves: once the need for it is created here, it will remain—that is one of the greatest dangers in clause 1.

I see the legislation working every day. I drove to the latest proximity talks—or preliminary talks, as they were called—along exactly the same road, through exactly the same checkpoint in exactly the same car for seven days running. This is where the random element comes in: on each occasion every other car was waved through, but mine was stopped. I was asked, "What is your name, sir?" Very courteously, I gave my name. I was then asked, "Where are you going, sir?" Very courteously, I told them where I was going.

Mr. Trimble

The hon. Gentleman was very wise to keep away from trouble.

Mr. Mallon

I am a mature person, not a young person who might be susceptible to that. If that can happen to someone such as myself, of mature age and, I hope, a little sense, what combustible circumstances will be created among young people day in and day out?

I know from personal experience that Provos have been created by that very piece of legislation. I know it because I know them. I have talked to them. I knew them before they were Provos. I talked to them in prison after they became terrorists and I know the reasons that triggered—if the House will forgive the pun—their reactions. There were two factors, one of which was the power to stop and search. In any circumstances, a body search is a humiliation. In a public place, it is even more of a humiliation. Under the terms of the legislation, to have someone remove one's shoes, jacket and outer clothing is a double humiliation. That is how the searches will be carried out and that humiliation produces a reaction. The reaction will express itself differently here: it will produce racial and social tension in places such as Kilburn, where the Irish population will be saturated with searches. Once the police are given such powers without recourse even to reasonable suspicion, the whole integrity of the law will be diminished, and when that happens, society in general does not have the protection of that law.

Mr. Corbyn

I hope that the House has taken note of what was said by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the effects of a stop-and-search policy. I strongly support amendment No. 5, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) as it addresses a double problem in the measure. First, the police will be protected from any complaint about a totally erroneous and harassing stop and search because they do not have to provide any evidence whatever of the need to stop and search somebody. Secondly, the meansure will create the utmost anger and ill feeling within the Irish community. A young Irish person living in London, perhaps working with one or two others on building industry jobs and driving around London in a Ford Transit van, will find himself constantly being stopped and harassed as soon as the police hear his accent. I have met many people who are very angry at the attitude of the police. As soon as they hear an Irish accent enunciated by a building worker, that becomes the ground for investigation, complaint and demanding to see documents. This new power gives the police carte blanche to stop people for no obvious reason.

Even if the legislation is designed to elicit the co-operation of the community in achieving its purpose, I believe that it will operate in exactly the opposite way. It will not be just Irish building workers and people with Irish accents who are stopped. Under the legislation, the police do not have to give any reason for stopping someone. So next it will be young black people walking along the street whom the police may or may not like, or whom the police may suspect of something else, or to whom the police may want to give a hard time; they will be stopped and searched and there will be no comeback for them.

Mr. Trimble

They have a remedy at law.

Mr. Corbyn

The hon. Gentleman expresses his opinion from a very sedentary position—he is sitting on the floor. My reading of the amendment suggests that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West would provide a remedy in the law, but the legislation itself ensures that there is no such remedy, as the police do not have to give reasons for stopping and searching people.

Surely in a civilised society which believes in due process, the police have to have a reason for doing something. I hope that the House will therefore heed my hon. Friend's view, well supported as he was by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who has explained exactly how such powers can alienate an entire community and have effects that are the opposite of those intended.

Ms Abbott

I support the amendments, especially amendment No. 5. At the heart of my concern about the Bill is the giving of fresh powers to the police to stop and search people at random.

Subsection (3) states: A constable may exercise his powers under this section whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles

for the commission of acts of terrorism. That process is wholly subjective and arbitrary. We have heard from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the consequences of such legislation for community relations in Northern Ireland. His experience cannot be bettered. What is more, just as that type of arbitrary power to stop and search has poisoned relations between young people and the authorities in Northern Ireland, so it will poison relations between young people and the authorities in London.

It will not do to say that there are not many complaints, or that young people will understand. All that we know about the exercise of such powers is that they create tensions, hostility and resentment. If this House really wants to fight terrorism, we must all accept that, ultimately, the job is one of winning hearts and minds. We shall not win them by giving the police arbitrary powers of this kind which, all the evidence tells us, inevitably lead to friction between the police and the community, especially young people—whatever their colour.

Mr. Kirkhope

This has been a useful debate, but I am rather disappointed at some of the negative remarks made by several hon. Members. One has only to listen to the views of the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to realise that, much as we may not wish to have these powers and much as we may restrict them, they are shown to be effective in Northern Ireland, and we believe that they will help us in the fight against terrorism on the mainland as well.

I must also tell hon. Members that the safeguards for the powers mean that the analogy suggested by the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who tried to link the Bill with the old sus laws, does not work. They must realise that the Bill contains tight restrictions, including specified areas, specified circumstances, the approval of a senior police officer and a time limit.

11.45 pm

Amendment No. 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), would have the effect of removing clause 1(3) which, as we have heard, will allow the searching of a pedestrian by a constable whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles

that could be used for the commission, preparation or instigation of … acts of terrorism.

As has been mentioned, the Bill as drafted mirrors the existing provision in section 13A(4) of the PTA, which allows a constable to search vehicles, their occupants and the bags of pedestrians without specific grounds for suspicion. It would plainly not make any sense for the similar powers in the Bill to be operated in completely different ways. As I have said, the existing stop-and-search powers in section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Temporary Provisions) 1989 are subject to close safeguards and so will the new stop-and-search power be.

I mentioned the authorisation of a senior police officer, in this case an assistant chief constable. In addition to the existing safeguards, the new powers to search pedestrians will lapse after 48 hours if the Home Secretary does not endorse them. By requiring grounds for suspicion, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, amendment No. 5 would seriously weaken a critical part of the provision: the deterrent effect. I am sure that hon. Members from Northern Ireland are aware of the importance of that and, indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to it earlier. Removing the deterrent effect would have a serious impact which we believe would be very unfortunate. A terrorist cannot be allowed to know that he can walk down the street with inconspicuous devices in his pocket without any possibility of the police giving him even the most cursory search. It is essential that the police are able to take steps to prevent attacks carried out by terrorists, whether on foot or in vehicles.

Ms Abbott

The Under-Secretary of State has commented on a number of interventions by hon. Members, but I hope that he will not complete his remarks without commenting on the speech made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who, from his experience of his part of Great Britain, made the interesting observation that precisely such provisions had created terrorists.

Mr. Kirkhope

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has his views on the subject, and I have listened to them with great care. Perhaps what he was saying—and I do not agree—was that once such powers are put in place, they will never be removed. That is, in my view, an especially negative comment. Our hope is that these powers will be removed, that we shall have peace and that we shall not need the powers to curb or deter terrorism. Unfortunately, we need to do that now and we have to make the powers as effective as possible.

The only people who would benefit from amendment No. 5 are terrorists, who would be able to walk the streets with impunity. That is why I cannot accept the amendment. As for amendments Nos. 6 and 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), they would add nothing to the meaning of clause 1. On a simple point of logic, since the power is to be available and should be available regardless of suspicion, it does not seem to matter on what that suspicion could or should centre. On that basis, I must ask the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Canavan

I should like to respond briefly to the Minister's disgraceful comment that the only people who would benefit from my amendment would be terrorists. That is absolute nonsense. Many people going about their lawful business, going to and from work, going shopping, visiting relatives or even going to their own residences will suffer at the least a great deal of inconvenience or possibly worse with harassment by the police because of the legislation. My amendment would have provided at least some benefit to those innocent people.

I do not want to waste precious time by pressing the amendment to a Division. However, I certainly do not wish to withdraw it because the Minister has not made a logical argument against it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Straw

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 1, line 25, at end insert— '(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, "in public" shall include any public highway and any other area accessible to the public.'.

My colleagues and the Committee will recall that clause 1 (4) states: Nothing in this section authorises a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than any headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves. Earlier, we had an interesting debate about when and in what circumstances a jacket might be removed from a lady. The amendment has been moved to understand whether "in public" includes what is contained in the amendment or whether it has some other meaning.

Mr. Kirkhope

I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The term "in public" includes any public highway or any other area accessible to the public. I hope that that short response assists the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Straw

It assists me mightily. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Canavan

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 2, line 8, leave out— 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or'.

The Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 44, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'or both'.

Mr. Canavan

The amendment would delete the reference to a prison sentence. Under the Bill as it stands people could be sent to prison for up to six months simply for failing to stop when required to do so by a constable exercising his powers under the clause.

There are already far too many people in our prisons and far too many anomalies in our judicial and penal systems. Many people are sent to prison simply for not paying fines and others, strangely, receive non-custodial sentences although some of them have committed serious crimes, including violent crimes and sexual abuse of children and so on. It would be unfair if people who had committed offences that were not nearly as serious as some of those to which I have referred were sent to prison for up to six months.

For example, someone might be in a hurry to get to work and might not know that the surrounding area had been designated by a senior police officer in accordance with the Bill, perhaps during the night or early in the morning. That person might brush past a policeman, and refuse to stop in order not to be late. A woman might refuse to be searched by a male police officer. The Home Secretary said earlier that it was perfectly permissible for a male officer to subject a woman to a search; some women—perhaps even most women—might object strongly to that. I think that it would be unjustifiable for people caught up in such circumstances to be imprisoned for up to six months.

Mr. Kirkhope

The penalties provided in new section 13B mirror those provided in respect of offences committed under the existing section 13A. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that the penalties are excessive, or that they should be changed. If a person fails to stop for a search, or obstructs a constable, that will immediately give rise to suspicion that he may either be carrying terrorist or other prohibited material, or deliberately be causing a diversion to divert police resources from the real bomber. In such circumstances, I think it entirely proper to leave it to the court to decide whether a prison sentence is appropriate. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who clearly feels strongly about the issue; but I feel strongly about it as well, and I think that, while the conclusions reached by the courts are a matter for them, the penalties should be those that we have proposed.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McNamara

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 13, at end insert— 'and in any case not later than 24 hours after it has been given orally.'.

Clause 1 gives the police power to make an order that can last for 48 hours, but must then be confirmed by the Secretary of State or lapse. The person giving the authorisation must ensure that the Secretary of State is informed, as soon as reasonably practicable, that it has been given. We believe that a time limit should be placed on what is reasonably practicable: we believe that the information should be given not later than 24 hours after the authorisation has been given orally. We are saying that the power can operate for a day, but after that the Secretary of State must be informed. That does not mean that the power cannot exist for another 48 hours. The Secretary of State will not be prevented from deciding when the matter should be dealt with, but the amendment imposes a duty on the police authority to ensure—to overcome the suspicions felt by many of us—that the police inform the Secretary of State of the action that has been taken within 24 hours.

Mr. Kirkhope

There is obviously a clear operational need for the police to be able to respond quickly to intelligence or discoveries of terrorist activity. That is why the stop-and-search power can be invoked orally. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said, the amendment would require a stop-and-search operation that had been authorised orally to be confirmed in writing within 24 hours.

The police would not want—nor would they have any reason—to delay written confirmation of the powers. A number of bombs and false alarms on the same day might make it very difficult to obtain written authorisation without taking a senior officer away from critical operational duties at that time. For that reason, we cannot afford to impose an inflexible and rigid 24-hour limit.

12 midnight

Furthermore, under clause 1(8), a person giving an authorisation for the use of the power must inform the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable, and, as I said a little while ago, if the authorisation has not been confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of its issue, it will lapse. I do not therefore believe that there is any need for the amendment.

The same powers for oral authorisation, followed by written authorisation as soon as is reasonably practicable, are also being provided for in section 13A stop-and-search powers by clause 1(6). In the circumstances, the amendment is neither necessary nor desirable.

Mr. McNamara

What has been said makes the amendment necessary and practicable and the Bill should be amended. It is not too much of an imposition on the police to require that within 24 hours of taking such an extraordinary power they should inform the Secretary of State of what they have done.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Madden

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 35, at end insert— '(11) For the purposes of this section any person so stopped shall on being stopped be given the warrant number of the constable stopping him.'.

We have been given the impression throughout the proceedings that pedestrians who are stopped and asked to undergo a search will be required to do so only by a single police officer in standard uniform. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is very likely that police officers will be in groups and wearing protective clothing when stops are made. I am also sure that he appreciates that such protective clothing would often obscure the officers' numbers. The permanent and provisional guidance to which the Home Secretary has referred should therefore urge police officers in all circumstances to give their warrant number to the person who is being stopped and searched.

Taking into account the comments of several hon. Members, it would be very helpful if the guidance also ensured that, so far as is reasonably practicable, a woman police officer were always included in the group of officers undertaking such stops and searches. That would certainly allay some hon. Members' anxieties.

Lastly, we hope that the powers will be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. I hope that that will also apply to Sikhs who wear turbans, because any request for a Sikh to remove his turban—particularly in a public place, as envisaged in the Bill—would cause grave offence. I hope that the guidance will emphatically urge police officers not in any circumstances to request a Sikh to remove his turban.

I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment, as no amendment has so far been accepted by the Government. This is a reasonable request that should be accepted by the Minister. If a pedestrian is stopped in these circumstances, the least he should be given to allay any anxieties is the warrant number of the officer concerned. That is a basic requirement, and I hope the Minister accepts that.

Mr. Kirkhope

I hope that what I have to say will reassure the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I certainly understand his concerns, and we are completely at one in thinking that the new powers will need to be applied carefully, sensitively and appropriately. I believe that that will be done, but perhaps I can take my reassurance further.

I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The hon. Member for Bradford, West will be aware that the new powers will be subject to PACE code A—the code of practice covering the stop and search of persons—in the same way as the police powers under section 13A are now. He will also know that PACE code A requires a constable to give the person concerned his name, warrant or other identification number and the name of the police station to which he is attached before carrying out any search. The constable is also required to explain the object of the search and his authorisation for undertaking it.

The hon. Member for Bradford, West asked whether the powers applied to constables in uniform, and he will see that clause 1(2) of the Bill confers on any constable in uniform the power". He also mentioned a matter that has been raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—namely, the question of having women officers available when women are to be searched. I must repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on this; in operational terms, we cannot guarantee that. There is probably a preference within the police that—where it is possible and appropriate—a woman constable should be involved when dealing with women, but I cannot give a guarantee or an assurance in the circumstances.

I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, West is to some extent reassured by the nature of the obligations that exist under PACE code A and to which reference is made in the Bill. Because of that full information, I hope he will agree that his amendment is not necessary.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Michael

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 2, line 35, at end insert— '(12) If, following the exercise of the powers contained in section 13A above or this section a person is arrested and charged with an offence other than an offence under this Act or otherwise connected with terrorism, the fact and nature of the initial exercise of stop and search powers shall be made known to the court.'

The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) touched on such reassurance to some extent. Indeed, he went rather further by suggesting that the police should not prosecute for less serious offences that are discovered as a result of powers used to try to detect or prevent terrorism. The Home Secretary rejected that general approach, and I believe that there are some difficulties with it, as I think the hon. Member for Eltham would acknowledge.

Our amendment would require simply that the court should be aware when evidence arises from the exercise of the powers provided in the Bill. The court would, therefore, be able to take that fact into consideration if appropriate. Magistrates or judges would be well able to take a balanced view and to make a judgment on whether the circumstances were appropriate and should affect the disposal of the case before them.

The amendment would certainly put the matter on the record. It would supplement the promises already made by the Home Secretary about monitoring the use of the provisions and it would ensure that the knock-on effect from using the powers was transparent. That would offer reassurance to people because one cannot misuse a power or smuggle in prosecutions if one tells the court the nature of the circumstances in which evidence has been garnered. The amendment would have no detrimental effect on the police or the prosecution service in terms of ensuring that a breach of the law was brought before the court, but it would ensure, through transparency, that there was reassurance for those who fear that the provisions might be misused.

I have said that I do not fear misuse of the Bill. There is always a danger that the police will misuse their powers or go beyond them; it happens from time to time. It is regrettable when it happens and we need to have safeguards in place to avoid the misuse of powers as far as possible. That is in the best interests of the public and the police, who need the powers to do their job properly.

I hope that the Minister will accept that we are suggesting a proposal that provides an element of transparency, but that would not downgrade the ability of the police to use evidence that is gained as a result of the exercise of the new powers. That transparency would reassure those who fear the possibility of misuse of the powers. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the approach that will be taken on the matter.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has put the case fairly, as he acknowledged that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did in responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), with inadequate reinforcement by me.

I go back to my roads experience to argue against the point that I made earlier. I am aware that the police find that when they stop people in vehicles for one reason or another, a high proportion of offences is detected at certain times of night, many of which are not linked to the reason for stopping the vehicle in the first place. A good point has been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Having said that, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken a purist position. If one is trying to protect the vulnerable, whether or not they have been involved in an offence, one needs to be careful about the impact. Equally, I do not agree with the purist view, taken by some Labour Members, that the police should be able to charge people only if they have stopped them with a particular offence in mind. The culture within the police, within the courts and within the Crown Prosecution Service, therefore, needs to be not just accepted, but worked for.

Obviously I would like people not to commit offences in the first place, whether major or minor, but one needs to do more than to hope. I have had experience of the police doing their duty well; that is normal for police officers. However, like many hon. Members, I have come across the odd occasion when police officers have not done the right thing. For example, there have been cases of trumped-up charges of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, whether in a police station or elsewhere. This is not the right time, or Bill, to go into those issues, but I hope that those who will consider what to do with information that has been gained under this provision will exercise proper discretion, as I hope that they always do.

12.15 am

Mr. Mallon

I am in favour of this wise amendment. I knew that I would find something about which I could agree with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. If, as it must be, the operation of these powers is to be assessed, this surely is one of the ways in which it can be done. Ultimately, it is probably the only way.

I am not able to furnish the figures because of the speed with which we had to come here and prepare for the debate, but if the Minister were to examine the figures for people charged under the emergency provisions Act in the north of Ireland, he would find that, in the past four years, well over 80 per cent. of cases involved charges in connection with parking motor cars in a place designated as illegal from a security point of view. It is essential that an amendment such as this is accepted so that an assessment can be made of how such legislation is operating. Having said that, we shall find that it is a two-edged weapon. Inevitably, a substantial number of non-terrorist cases will be established as a result of this anti-terrorist legislation. The case will be made that such stop-and-search powers should be part of the usual arrangements because of their very success. Even accepting that element of it, the legislation must be assessed by Parliament when that is required by Parliament. It must be assessed by the Home Office at all stages and it must be assessed so that the public can be reassured that it is being used in the proper way. I support the amendment.

Mr. Kirkhope

I appreciate the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and by the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). However, it is hard to understand how a person could be dealt with in a court without the original stop and search being made clear in the prosecution evidence. It would be up to the court to decide whether such evidence was admissible in any particular case. The amendment's purpose is met by existing arrangements. Despite all the persuasive and interesting arguments, it is not necessary. For that straightforward reason, I ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Michael

The Minister needs to take a little more note of the issues that have been raised. It is important in practice—we will keep an eye on this—that reassurance is offered that the powers will be used for the intention for which they were given by Parliament, and not abused. That is why we tabled the amendment. The Minister and the Home Secretary have acknowledged the importance of that, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House in this short debate. A marker has been put down and in the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 20.

Division No. 96]	[00.20 am
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Butler, Peter
Amess, David	Carrington, Matthew
Arbuthnot, James	Carttiss, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Cash, William
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Chapman, Sir Sydney
Ashby, David	Clappison, James
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Coe, Sebastian
Bates, Michael	Congdon, David
Beggs, Roy	Conway, Derek
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Body, Sir Richard	Couchman, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Cran, James
Boswell, Tim	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Bowis, John	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Brandreth, Gyles	Day, Stephen
Browning, Mrs Angela	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Burns, Simon	Devlin, Tim
Burt, Alistair	Darrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Butcher, John	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Duncan Smith, Iain	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Dunn, Bob	Merchant, Piers
Elletson, Harold	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Moate, Sir Roger
Faber, David	Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Fabricant, Michael	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Fishburn, Dudley	Moss, Malcolm
Forman, Nigel	Nelson, Anthony
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)	Neubert, Sir Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Nicholls, Patrick
French, Douglas	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Gallie, Phil	Norris, Steve
Garnier, Edward	Page, Richard
Gillan, Cheryl	Paice, James
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Gorst, Sir John	Patnick, Sir Irvine
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Hannam, Sir John	Powell, William (Corby)
Hargreaves, Andrew	Rendel, David
Harris, David	Richards, Rod
Hawkins, Nick	Riddick, Graham
Hawksley, Warren	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Heald, Oliver	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Hicks, Robert	Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Shaw, David (Dover)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)	Spencer, Sir Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Hunter, Andrew	Spink, Dr Robert
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Spring, Richard
Jenkin, Bernard	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Steen, Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Stephen, Michael
Key, Robert	Stern, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom	Sweeney, Walter
Kirkhope, Timothy	Thomason, Roy
Knapman, Roger	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Trimble, David
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Viggers, Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Waller, Gary
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Ward, John
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Waterson, Nigel
Leigh, Edward	Watts, John
Lidington, David	Wells, Bowen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Whittingdale, John
Lord, Michael	Widdecombe, Ann
Luff, Peter	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Willetts, David
McCrea, The Reverend William	Wolfson, Mark
MacKay, Andrew	Wood, Timothy
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick
Maginnis, Ken	Tellers for the Ayes:
Maitland, Lady Olga	Mr. Richard Ottaway and
Major, Rt Hon John	Mr. Gary Streeter.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Mackinlay, Andrew
Barnes, Harry	McNamara, Kevin
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Mallon, Seamus
Bennett, Andrew F	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Salmond, Alex
Cunningham, Roseanna	Sedgemore, Brian
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Skinner, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman A
Livingstone, Ken	Tellers for the Noes:
Loyden, Eddie	Mr. Max Madden and
McGrady, Eddie	Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clauses 2 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment, pursuant to Order.

Mr. Beith

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), just gave a seriously misleading report—and he had much difficulty in reading it. He said that the Committee had gone through the Bill. Is it not the case that the Committee has been allowed to consider only clause 1 of the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

It may be a point of comment, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Order for Third Reading read.

12.33 am

Mr. Howard

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had a long, constructive and extremely interesting debate. I recognise that some hon. Members have not had as much time as they would have liked to consider each and every clause of the Bill in detail. However, I believe that we have been able to debate the principal points at issue. In addition, the assurances that have been given on the genuine concerns that have been raised should go far to allay any anxieties. Some hon. Members have deep-rooted reasons for opposing the Bill, and clearly we have not been able to satisfy their concerns. Nevertheless, I believe that we have established to the satisfaction of hon. Members the urgent need for these powers in the face of the terrorist threat. We need to give the police these additional powers if they are to do their utmost to give the people of this country the protection from terrorism that they deserve.

Mr. Beith

I shall give the Home Secretary the opportunity to allay another point of concern. I refer to proposed paragraph 4A(5) of schedule 5 to the 1989 Act. Are the persons employed by a police authority for the assistance of constables—who are given power under the Bill, if necessary, to use reasonable force for the purpose of performing these functions—civilian employees? Are they people who have been trained to use reasonable force? Have Scottish chief constables been consulted about, and given approval for, the use of civilians, using reasonable force for the performance of those functions?

Mr. Howard

The intention of proposed paragraph 4A(5) is to allow persons who are not constables to exercise the paragraph 4A powers. Sub-paragraph (5) provides a similar power in Scotland to that provided in England and Wales by paragraph 4A(3), and it is intended that people in the category identified by the right hon. Gentleman will have the powers to which he referred. I believe that the police will exercise discretion and common sense in seeking the assistance of people who come into that category. I do not believe that that need give rise to any serious or deep anxiety on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

The Home Secretary was asked a specific question about consultation with Scottish chief constables. He has manifestly refused to answer it. Will he now kindly do so? Has there been consultation with Scottish chief constables on the point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Will the Home Secretary kindly address the point?

Mr. Howard

The hon. Gentleman has now asked an entirely different question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman has now asked a question about consultation.

Mr. Mackinlay

The answer is no.

Mr. Howard

No, the answer is not no, if the hon. Gentleman would contain himself from his sedentary position.

As I said earlier, I discussed these matters with the senior police officer in this country who has responsibility for directing anti-terrorist operations, and Home Office officials discussed the matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. These powers have therefore been discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. I believe that, when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has the opportunity of considering these matters with ACPO Scotland, he will find that its members are as desirous of these additional powers as are their counterparts in England and Wales.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

rose—

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

rose—

Mr. Howard

I give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Ewing

This is an interesting exchange. Will the Home Secretary place in the Library a record of the meetings that were held with representatives of the Scottish police superintendents and Scottish police officers? This appears to be a sign that there is now an attempt to apply the prevention of terrorism Act UK-wide. If that is to be the case, surely we need much more substantial debates, and we certainly need to know the response of police officers in Scotland.

Mr. Howard

I must correct, in one minor detail, what I said a moment ago. I am told that I said that Home Office officials discussed the matter with ACPO Scotland.

Mr. Wallace

You did.

Mr. Howard

I should have said Scottish Office officials, because it was Scottish Office officials who were engaged in those discussions with ACPO Scotland.

I confess that I do not entirely follow the drift of the point raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). We have made clear from the outset the way in which the powers are to be exercised and the territorial areas to which they apply. The main prevention of terrorism Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland; there are different provisions in Northern Ireland. As I made plain from the outset—in my statement yesterday—all the powers save the one that is not at present available in Northern Ireland would be confined to Great Britain under the Bill, but the one that is not at present available in Northern Ireland would be legislated for on a United Kingdom basis. There has been no doubt about that; I made it clear from the outset.

Mr. Wallace

I wonder when the Home Secretary last read the 1993 report of Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland—specifically, paragraphs 47 to 51, which relate to the use of civilian employees in the police force—which clearly categorises what is appropriate for civilian employees and what is not. What training has been made available to civilian employees so that, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, they may exercise the powers that the Home Secretary has given them under the proposed paragraph?

Mr. Howard

I freely confess to the House that I am not familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report of the inspectorate in Scotland. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The police will have every opportunity to ensure that, in exercising the powers, they do not seek the assistance of those who have not received the appropriate training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the police are extremely careful about the need to train anyone with particular responsibilities. That applies as much to those who assist the police in discharging those responsibilities as to anyone else. I think that I can confidently make that assertion and give that assurance, even without being familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Salmond

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to display his ignorance of the situation in Scotland in the absence of any Scottish Office Minister on the Government Front Bench to advise him of what he should know already?

Madam Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Howard

I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not responsible for the police in Scotland: that is why I have told the House that I am not familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred. I shall now resume the points that I was making.

Mr. Wallace

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary says, quite rightly, that he is not responsible for the police in Scotland. However, the legislation to which we are being asked to give Third Reading includes clauses that relate specifically to Scotland. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you recollect any Bill coming before the House containing provisions for which there was no Minister responsible on the Treasury Bench? Is that not a serious dereliction of duty by the Government?

Madam Deputy Speaker

I repeat that it is a matter for the Government, not for the Chair.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)

rose—

Mr. Howard

If my hon. Friend will contain himself for a moment, I shall content myself with making this observation: none of those hon. Members who have risen to proclaim the extent of their concern about the Bill's application to Scotland deigned to come into the Chamber during the former proceedings. They were not present during the Second Reading of the Bill, during the discussions about the timetabling of the legislation or during any of the considerations in Committee. If they were serious in their concern about the Bill's application to Scotland, they would have been present for those discussions.

Mr. Wallace

We never reached it.

Mr. Howard

It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that, because we reached that stage in the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Salmond

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I see from the entrance of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), that our points of order are having some effect. Is it in order for the Home Secretary, who has no responsibility for Scotland, to make those allegations when we manifestly did not reach the parts of the Bill that hon. Members from Scotland wished to discuss as a result of the Government's timetable motion?

Madam Deputy Speaker

As I have explained before—it seems to be slow sinking in—the Chair has no responsibility for those matters.

Mr. Howard

The points of order are just as bogus as the concerns that Opposition Members are expressing. They know perfectly well that whatever is capable of being raised on Third Reading could be raised on Second Reading.

Mr. Beith

I did.

Mr. Howard

I am not talking about the right hon. Gentleman; he does not represent a Scottish constituency and I am excluding him from my remarks. I refer to the hon. Members for Moray, for Orkney and Shetland and for Banff and Buchan, who have risen in the past few minutes and whose concern is every bit as bogus as their interventions and points of order.

Mr. Mallon

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who at least has been present for most of the debate.

Mr. Mallon

Lest there be any invidious distinction drawn, the Minister will agree that the fifth section of the legislation applies to the north of Ireland for the first time. Should not the Minister responsible for security in the north of Ireland be in the Chamber—at least out of courtesy to hon. Members from Northern Ireland—or did the Home Secretary prevent that out of consideration for us?

Mr. Howard

There was no need for any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve in the Northern Ireland Office to be here. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points during the debate and they were all answered, so I do not believe that he has any cause for concern.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

Does the Home Secretary accept that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom appreciate that he has brought to the House legislation that is necessary to fight terrorism? The threat to the country is from the terrorists, not the police. Listening to some of the speeches tonight, one might wonder who was the threat. To me and the vast majority of people, the terrorists are the threat, the police should have the legislation to deal with them and the Home Secretary has introduced that necessary legislation.

Mr. Howard

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Much of the debate in the House tonight has had an air of unreality which would have astonished our constituents. Had they been present during our deliberations and heard some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Back Benchers and some of the fanciful questions that were raised about what would happen if the police sought to exercise some of the search powers that the Bill provides, they would have been absolutely astonished by the approach of certain Opposition Members.

Of course, on this occasion I exclude those who spoke from the Labour Front Bench. They made responsible speeches in which they supported the legislation. It is a pity that they were not able to carry through what they said by joining us in the Division Lobby and showing that they supported the Government in introducing the legislation not only by their words but by their votes and their deeds.

The Bill is an important measure. It will give the police five important new powers with which to safeguard the public and tackle the threats posed by terrorists. As has been generally agreed, its provisions are sensible and practical. They contain clear and effective safeguards to ensure that they are used carefully and sensibly and only when operationally necessary.

I believe that those powers will make a real difference. It is essential that they are put in place immediately so that they start to make that difference as soon as possible. I commend the Bill to the House.

12.47 am

Mr. Straw

When the Home Secretary asked for our support for the Bill last Thursday and we gave it consideration, we concluded that we should support it on the merits of the case and not on the prospect that he would be able to maintain a conciliatory tone throughout the debates.

The Home Secretary said that we should be judged not only by our words but by our deeds. If he reflects on our deeds in securing the passage of the measure, he will realise that not only our words but our actions in collaborating with the Government have ensured that the measure has rightly secured a relatively easy passage through the House.

Earlier this evening, we exposed a liberal flank in the Home Secretary. Although he was not a Member of Parliament in 1981, he would have supported the liberal measure to abolish the sus laws and replace them with something altogether softer and more liberal. Reading the Evening Standard just a moment ago in the Tea Room, I discovered that the Home Secretary has been infected with liberalism to an even greater extent. He is now seeking to emulate the distinguished former Liberal Prime Minister of the last century, William Gladstone. I read in the Evening Standard that yesterday Soho sleaze was laid bare for the Home Secretary".

He apparently spent yesterday evening, no doubt in preparation for today, strolling down the streets of Soho—doubtless seeking to save souls. He said, unusually employing a double negative redolent of the Scott report, that it was an area I am not totally unfamiliar with".

He went on to add hastily: I come here to go to the cinema, the theatre or the restaurants",

and added—no doubt before being searched— I think the police do a very good job.

We are glad to recognise that some forces of liberalism are taking over the Secretary of State, and that, as a result, he has readily accepted the need for safeguards to be written into the operative clause of the measure, clause 1.

We have considered the Bill with great care. We believe that, although the powers are important, they do not raise any major issue of principle. They are squarely based on the powers taken in 1994 in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act; and I remind my hon. Friends that not a single Member of the House voted against clause 62 of that Bill or spoke against it. Labour Front Benchers supported it; we thought it an important addition to the anti-terrorist laws; and we believe that the powers in the Bill, especially clause 1, fill a gap in the legislation that needed filling.

None of this would have been necessary but for the fact that the IRA unilaterally decided to end its ceasefire on 9 February, and subsequently killed and maimed many people and caused millions of pounds-worth of damage to shops and businesses. It is our fervent hope—and that, I believe, of all hon. Members—that the IRA will re-establish its ceasefire and that there will follow a process to secure a permanent peace. But so long as that peace is a more distant prospect than any of us would wish, it is important that these measures reach the statute book. I am glad tonight that by words and deeds we have assisted their progress.

12.51 am

Mr. Peter Bottomley

It is important, as far as possible, to maintain a bipartisan approach to these issues. If that means that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave way to Labour representations when these issues were discussed, that was well worth while. Agreement requires compromise, and if serious points raised in those discussions are reflected in assurances given, or in the Bill itself, the whole House will welcome that. It is worth remembering that this Bill amends the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and allows the police, and sometimes others, additional powers to prevent and investigate acts of terrorism. The provisions for searching those out of vehicles are merely broader than those in the original Act. The narrower powers in the original legislation to stop pedestrians and to search anything carried by them have been extended now to allow them to be searched, within reason. This wider power has been adjudged necessary. The events in London in February showed the need for it, and I have no doubt that is why the police suggested the change in discussions with the Home Office.

The rest of the Bill is probably not controversial. Clauses 2 to 5 and the schedule have not troubled anyone in the House unduly. What we have not heard yet is whether some of these powers already exist in the Republic of Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has told me semi-privately—[HON. MEMBERS: "Semi-privately?"] He talked to me just now when I was sitting in front of him. If in these debates we could be told what powers already exist in the Republic, we would sometimes discover that some hon. Members are raising fears that do not amount to fears in the 26 counties of Ireland. The same applies to some of the other countries in Europe. That is a useful context in which to put the Bill and that may reduce the temperature of the debate. It is easy in the House to get involved in great arguments of principle when no issue of principle is involved.

My final point is related to a telephone message I received from someone who chose to be anonymous and who asked why I was speaking for the people of Ireland. Although my Irish links are not as great as some people's, it is possible to repeat what people in Ireland say. They, whether secular or Church, partisan or non-partisan, say that they reject violence. Democracy is about debate, decision and defeat and not always about debate, decision and victory. Democracy is about being willing to abide by the views of the majority whether in Parliament or in the country.

Time and again, people have rejected violence in a country that has one person, one vote. That applies in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom and that should allow people to follow the agreement made by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach—be that the Downing Street declaration or further agreements—that the nations of these islands will work together for the benefit of the people. That requires giving support to the police services in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. My personal view is that the most important approach is not just police action but what the people do. I make one plea as the Bill moves on to another place: anybody who is concerned to reduce violence should tell Sinn Fein and the IRA, and the paramilitaries on the other side, to end the violence now, because it will not do any good. Crosses on ballot papers matter more than crosses in the cemetery. Democratic countries cannot be expected to give way to violence, because it is not the way forward.

12.56 am

Mr. Benn

This is a thoroughly bad Bill, which has been rushed through with indecent haste, and my hon. Friends who have voted against it will be shown to have been right.

One argument against the Bill has not yet been put—that the Bill will not contribute in any way to the ending of violence in Northern Ireland. I have sat in this place a long time and I have heard Ministers from both parties present Bills. I was in the Cabinet when the troops were sent in, and that was going to solve the problem. Partition was going to solve the problem. Stormont was going to solve the problem. Direct rule was going to solve the problem. Power sharing was going to solve the problem. Diplock courts were going to solve the problem, as were strip searches, supergrass trials, CS gas, and detention without trial. None of the policies pursued by successive British Governments, in line with the sort of speech that we heard tonight, has contributed to peace in Ireland.

The fighting ended, not as a result of anything that came from Ministers but because Albert Reynolds, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and a former Member of the House, Gerry Adams, persuaded the IRA to stop fighting in the hope of getting talks going. That was what ended it. The police measures and the Sinn Fein ban did not bring about what everybody in the House wants—an end to the killing. I will not go further into that question because I am not a believer in scapegoats, but I do not believe that the Government made it possible for that to proceed.

It is worth reminding the House of certain events during the ceasefire. First, the mythology was propagated by some people that there was an attempt to get the north forcibly into the south. Nobody thinks that the Six Counties can be forced into the south. The Republic does not want the Six Counties. Does the House think that the south wants the Ulster Unionists sitting in the Dail? Of course it does not. We are talking about what was set out clearly in the Hume-Adams-Reynolds proposal—that the people of the island of Ireland would resolve their own future.

The second consequence of the ceasefire was that the two communities in the north got together—thank God. The communities have a lot in common, because there are many problems there that have not a sectarian basis but an economic or class basis. That has been an important development.

The third development was the involvement of Dublin. Although I know that some of my hon. Friends and the Ulster Unionists do not like it, the British Government cannot move without Dublin, which now exercises a sort of unofficial condominium with the British Government over the Six Counties. I welcome that.

President Clinton got in on it too. The authority of the British Government, who have always protested that they are the sole authority in Northern Ireland, was eroded because their policies failed, and an initiative came from within Ireland itself to bring about peace. I have long believed that the solution to this problem is to be found in the termination of jurisdiction. I have introduced many Bills, and I believe that that is what will happen.

British Government power cannot be enforced in Northern Ireland. Of course, I fully understand why the Unionists want that. They want the support of British troops when they get into trouble with their nationalist colleagues in the north. That is what the whole thing is about and the Unionists have played a significant part in preventing the talks from being held.

One of the factors that will ultimately persuade the British people—who, if opinion polls mean anything, have been in favour of a British withdrawal for 25 years— is that our liberties and not just the liberties of the people in the north are going. The Bill touches on our liberties and it will persuade more people in Britain that our liberties and their liberties go side by side and that we must find an answer by talking and not by fighting.

Mr. Maginnis

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn

We are under a terrible guillotine and I do not want to take too much time.

Mr. Maginnis

The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the Ulster Unionists.

Mr. Benn

I was not alluding to the hon. Gentleman personally. I am trying to make a point, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maginnis

I am not sure whether I should call the right hon. Gentleman Aesop or one of the Brothers Grimm. I have listened to his fairy tales for the past five minutes. He is very entertaining although he is not very realistic. He should consider what happened in London when what was referred to as the ring of steel was placed around the City to prevent terrorist activity. Was not that widely accepted and welcomed and did it not serve a useful purpose? The right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues are nodding.

Mr. Benn

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to the Victoria tower and pulls out the 1641 Act of Charles I for dealing with the rebels in Ireland. [Interruption.] This legislation is of Charles I proportions.

What I am saying may be unpopular but many predictions come true. The House cannot and has no right to govern Northern Ireland. It is not that the south wants to take over the north, but the problem must be resolved within that island. Until we recognise that fact, all the police powers that the Home Secretary can think up—and I have no doubt that given a bit of time he will think up some more—will fail to solve the problem. So far, none of them has achieved the objectives that were in the minds of those who advocated them.

1.3 am

Mr. Beith

The notion that the IRA does not wish to use the bomb to force people to accept what it could not get them to accept politically is plain naive and plain stupid. It has been trying to do that consistently for years and we have had to use all sorts of means to try to prevent it. Trying to change the political context in which the IRA is waging its war is obviously crucial to the whole issue. If police operations had not been mounted against terrorism, more people would have died and more would have been maimed.

It is necessary to have legislation. We may disagree about its precise content, but it has been important to have appropriate measures on the statute book. In that spirit we supported the Bill's Second Reading although we were critical of the procedure by which it was considered. The police were right to seek clarification of their powers and, in some respects, an extension of them. We supported the proposal that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill because the Committee examined that clause and considered amendments to it. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, however, were not discussed in Committee, and nor was the schedule. Most of the Bill has never been examined in Committee. A simple illustration of the problems that we would encounter arose when, along with others, I sought to raise the position in Scotland. No Scottish Office Minister attended the Committee: Scottish Office Ministers must have been told that the intention was not to reach the parts of the Bill relating to Scotland.

There is still the puzzle about who are the civilians who will be allowed to use force in the exercise of functions set out in the Bill. It is difficult to understand what powers we shall unleash if we give untrained civilian staff the right to use force in the context of a Bill such as this. That is one of many details that have never been examined. It does no service to the police or the public to enact legislation in this undigested, unexamined form, relying wholly on a few parliamentary draftsmen and officials in the Home Office and hoping that they got it right in the first place. Past experience suggests that that will not be the case.

We should have examined the Bill properly, but we have not. The Home Secretary cannot expect us to support the Third Reading of a Bill almost all of which has not been examined in Committee.

1.5 am

Mr. Mallon

Only three weeks ago, we spent three hours debating the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. During that debate, the Home Secretary gave no indication that there had been a request or a demand for additional powers such as these, or that he was thinking in terms of such powers.

One question remains unanswered. Was the Bill drafted after the renewal of the Act, and was whatever information the Home Secretary is privy to available to him before the renewal of the Act? Was the Bill ready and waiting to go, and was it held back—for whatever reason—until the night before Parliament was due to rise for the recess? That is crucial. Until we know the answer, it will be difficult to avoid the suspicion—a reasonable suspicion, in my view—that the way in which the Bill has been presented is a cynical exercise, and that its provisions could have been considered during the renewal of the PTA. It is for the Home Secretary to clarify the matter. In the circumstances in which the Bill has been presented, I think that he owes it to the House to tell us whether the Bill was drafted before the debate on the renewal of the PTA.

I have another question. We have often heard the accusation from some parts of the House that the terrorism at Canary wharf emanated from the Republic of Ireland, that the bombs were assembled there and brought from there and that the bombing resulted from activities in the Republic.

Mr. Maginnis

Yes.

Mr. Mallon

I thank the hon. Gentleman for confirming that. If he is right—the Home Secretary seems to think that he is on most occasions—did the British Government share their intelligence with the Irish Government in relation to the need to present the Bill tonight? Those two questions require answers. If the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is right and the accusation has been made against the Republic, surely the Home Secretary had a duty to inform the Irish Government of the security danger that existed within the Republic, which—if the hon. Gentleman is right—might stem from the Republic. In the circumstances, the Secretary of State must answer those two questions to avoid the reasonable suspicion that the way in which the Bill has been presented is an act of cynicism.

1.9 am

Mr. Corbyn

The debate is a complete travesty of parliamentary democracy and of the scrutiny of legislation by the House of Commons. It is less than 34 hours since the Home Secretary told the House that he was going to introduce the Bill, since when we have rushed through a very serious Bill without proper consideration, examination or debate. It was only because of the protests made yesterday and this morning by a considerable number of hon. Members that we were able to table and discuss amendments.

The Bill builds on bad legislation known as the prevention of terrorism Act, which has resulted not in the prevention of terrorism but in many Irish people—so far as Great Britain is concerned, they are mainly in London—being stopped, searched, held for up to seven days without access to a solicitor and, in most cases, then released. They have never forgotten the experience. The Bill gives the police powers in designated areas to stop and search people at random and there are apparently no rights for people who are wrongly treated as a result of it.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has pointed out, the House has discussed—in my experience of almost 13 years—dozens of various security measures that were supposed to bring an end to the problem in Ireland. They have not done so. The only solution can and must be political. I would have found it far more credible if the House had instead spent more time debating the need for the development of the peace process, all-party talks, constitutional change to end the Unionist veto in Northern Ireland and long-term peace. We would serve people far better by doing that than by passing legislation that will alienate many people in London and other cities in the country, particularly the young. We ought to be considering the peaceful future that could be attained.

The Bill brings only discredit to the House of Commons. It is an aberration of any democratic process. I hope that the House will reject it, but I recognise that that is very unlikely. I hope that there will be an opportunity in the near future to repeal the Bill, the PTA and all the other illiberal, uncontrollable legislation that has passed through the House.

1.12 am

Mr. Bennett

The main aim of terrorists is to destroy the democratic process, and over the past 12 hours we have played into their hands. We have shown them a travesty of the democratic process. It is appalling that the Government did not take time to ensure that the Bill could be discussed properly. We are told that it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to have published the Bill last week when they decided to go ahead with it. At least then people outside the House would have had a chance a read it, comment on it and suggest amendments via Members of Parliament. But no, the Government chose not even to publish a rough draft until yesterday. The Bill itself was published only today. We just about managed to debate clause 1 in Committee, but failed to debate properly another six clauses and a schedule.

I made it quite clear in the debate on the guillotine motion that if the Government had said that emergency legislation was needed for a week or two, after which the proper democratic process would be observed, they might have been able to justify it. To want to implement permanent legislation in such a way is absolutely appalling. When they behave in such a way, the Government play into the terrorists' hands because they demonstrate that things are unfair and unjust.

I would have liked the opportunity to put one or two questions, especially on parts of the Bill that we did not have the chance to consider in Committee, some of which I would certainly have supported. I would have asked the Secretary of State for some reassurances, especially on the powers to search non-residential buildings. The police should be entitled to search premises such as lock-up garages without having to seek a warrant, but following any search they must ensure that lock-up garages and other premises are left secure so that the owner can return to them. I hope that the Minister will tell us in the short time remaining whether he will give some guarantees that those assurances can be built into the guidance.

The proposed right of police officers to inspect goods at ports seems very sensible, and it is amazing that we have left that to customs officers, but there is a power to detain goods for up to seven days, and some of the goods that can be detained are date-sensitive and perishable. I should have thought that the Secretary of State could have assured us that the guidance will place a duty on the police to ensure that goods held for inspection are released as soon as possible.

Finally, I wish to refer to the banning of cars from particular areas—again, a perfectly sensible proposal. But if we are trying to ban vehicles from areas around public buildings, it may be easy to do that at night when there are no cars around. It is clear that it is intended to use the power in residential areas, and that causes a greater problem. People in many areas are entitled to park outside their homes, but they may not be in a fit state to drive their car away when asked to do so by a police officer. Again, the Secretary of State could have informed us what provisions are proposed to meet such a situation.

Those are the sort of matters on which we should have asked the Government for assurances. Instead, we have had the farce of legislation being rushed through with little or no time for hon. Members to make reasonable points and to ask the Government for guarantees. Such behaviour plays into the hands of the terrorists.

1.16 am

Ms Abbott

I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. On behalf of all my colleagues who will also be doing so, I must say how much we resent the cheap argument that anybody who criticises the way in which the Bill has been pushed through, or anybody who criticises any detail of the Bill, is in some sense soft on terrorism or is giving aid and succour to the people who blow up men, women and children. In my constituency, we could hear the Canary wharf bomb go off, and I resent—as do my colleagues—the implication that in some sense we do not take the matter seriously and are soft on terrorism.

I shall vote against the Bill because the way in which it has been pushed through Parliament shows contempt for our procedures and for the electors whom we are supposed to represent. I shall also vote against the Bill because I cannot accept giving the police wide-ranging powers to stop and search. Those of us who were present in the Chamber for the debates on amendments to clause 1 heard the heartfelt speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He spelt out the consequences of similar legislation in Northern Ireland for the relationship between young people and the police. The Bill will have exactly the same negative repercussions on young people on the mainland as it did in Northern Ireland.

The Home Secretary asked what our constituents would think if they could hear the debate today. If my constituents had heard the debate, they would have thought, "If the legislation is so important, why are the Government so adamant about not giving sufficient time to debate it?" If my constituents—black, white, Asian or whatever their ethnicity—aged under 21 could have heard the debate, they would have understood, as Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends failed to understand, the concerns that I expressed about giving police wide-ranging powers to stop and search. They would have understood that point, and it is a shame that the House did not.

I shall also oppose the legislation because I dislike the cynical motives of the Home Secretary in promoting it. I believe that when the history is written of 20th-century Home Secretaries, the present one will go down for many things. He will go down in history as the agitprop Home Secretary—a Home Secretary who ruthlessly promoted legislation purely for the purpose of making propaganda.

One of my and my colleagues' fundamental objections to the Bill is that we do not believe that it is only in the past 72 hours that the Home Secretary has discovered the need for it. We do not believe that it gives the police powers to do things that they could not already do without let or hindrance. We believe that the Bill has been promoted cynically as a means of propaganda and to allow Conservative Members the chance to paint this party and my Front-Bench colleagues as soft on terrorism.

My hon. Friends and I believe that promoting legislation for those purposes demeans the House and demeans the parliamentary process. I shall be proud to vote against the Bill tonight. I suspect that when people look back, they will believe that those of us who were prepared to vote against the Bill did the right thing.

1.20 pm

Mr. Howard

By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate on Third Reading has made up in the sharpness of its controversy for the relative absence of controversy in our proceedings hitherto. I was particularly interested in the speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which I thought encapsulated his entire political career. He put up an Aunt Sally and then knocked it down. He suggested that the new powers would not achieve peace in Ireland. Of course that is right; we have never put them forward on that basis.

I have never suggested that the purpose of the powers was to achieve peace in Northern Ireland and an end to the terrorist campaign in Great Britain. I would like to see peace achieved and I would like to see an end to the terrorist campaign—we are pursuing that objective through other means. The purpose of these powers is much more limited. It is to give our constituents the protection that they deserve from terrorist attacks. That is why our constituents have sent us here. If there is one thing that they care about more than anything else, it is the need for protection against terrorist outrages. That is what our constituents want—young as well as old. They would understand the police's need for the additional powers. That is why the powers are necessary, that is why the powers are urgent and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 13.

Division No. 97]	[1.21 am
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Fabricant, Michael
Amess, David	Forman, Nigel
Arbuthnot, James	Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Ashby, David	French, Douglas
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Gallie, Phil
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Garnier, Edward
Bates, Michael	Gillan, Cheryl
Beggs, Roy	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Body, Sir Richard	Gorst, Sir John
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Booth, Hartley	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Boswell, Tim	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Hannam, Sir John
Bowis, John	Hargreaves, Andrew
Brandreth, Gyles	Harris, David
Browning, Mrs Angela	Hawkins, Nick
Burt, Alistair	Hawksley, Warren
Butler, Peter	Heald, Oliver
Carrington, Matthew	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Carttiss, Michael	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Clappison, James	Hunter, Andrew
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Jenkin, Bernard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Coe, Sebastian	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Congdon, David	Key, Robert
Conway, Derek	King, Rt Hon Tom
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Kirkhope, Timothy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Knapman, Roger
Couchman, James	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Cran, James	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Leigh, Edward
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Lidington, David
Devlin, Tim	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Lord, Michael
Dover, Den	Luff, Peter
Duncan Smith, Iain	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob	McCrea, The Reverend William
Elletson, Harold	MacKay, Andrew
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Faber, David	Maginnis, Ken

Maitland, Lady Olga	Spencer, Sir Derek
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Merchant, Piers	Spink, Dr Robert
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Spring, Richard
Moate, Sir Roger	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector	Steen, Anthony
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Stephen, Michael
Nelson, Anthony	Stern, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael	Streeter, Gary
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Sweeney, Walter
Nicholls, Patrick	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Thomason, Roy
Openheim, Phillip	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Page, Richard	Viggers, Peter
Paice, James	Waller, Gary
Paisley, The Reverend Ian	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Waterson, Nigel
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Watts, John
Porter, David (Waveney)	Wells, Bowen
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Whittingdale, John
Powell, William (Corby)	Widdecombe, Ann
Richards, Rod	Willetts, David
Riddick, Graham	Wolfson, Mark
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Wood, Timothy
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Ross, William (E Londonderry)	Mr. Simon Burns and
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)	Mr. Richard Ottaway.

NOES
Barnes, Harry	Mallon, Seamus
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Bennett, Andrew F	Sedgemore, Brian
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Skinner, Dennis
Livingstone, Ken
McGrady, Eddie	Tellers for the Noes:
McNamara, Kevin	Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and
Madden, Max	Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.