Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill (Allocation of Time)

HC Deb 02 April 1996 vol 275 cc156-208

Madam Speaker

I have selected amendments (a) and (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and amendment (e), a manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

3.43 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill:—

Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(3) The proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(4) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings in Committee.

(5) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall. notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(6) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(7) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Conclusion of proceedings

2.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
3. (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and
157
2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on Consideration of any Lords Amendments shall be completed at the sitting on 3rd April and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3 above—

1. (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
2. (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
3. (iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amemdments; and
4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
3. (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

5.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

1. (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
2. (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
158
3. (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Business Committee

6. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

8. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at any day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if the sitting is suspended before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order prevents any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

As the House knows, yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained in a statement to the House why, in the current security circumstances following the calling off of the IRA ceasefire, he had been persuaded of the need to confer additional powers on the police. He described his proposals yesterday, and they are set out in detail in the draft Bill which was also published yesterday, and which, in the past 10 minutes, has been metamorphosed into an actual Bill and introduced in the House.

I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's view of the need for the Bill is shared by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The official Opposition have made it clear that they are satisfied with the case that has been made, and while the Liberal Democrats have, perhaps, been more delphic—I hope that that is not unfair—I think it reasonable to say that their concerns appeared to be with the procedures proposed rather with the policy itself. On the procedures, I can only say that the Government think—having made the judgment that the powers are needed—that it must be right to try to enact them before Parliament rises for Easter, rather than waiting a fortnight or more for Parliament to resume. That means that the House must complete its consideration of the Bill today, so that it can be dealt with in another place tomorrow with a view to securing Royal Assent tomorrow evening. The purpose of the motion is to enable the House to achieve that in a sensible and orderly way.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Could not what the Leader of the House wants have been achieved—even taking into account the Home Secretary's delay in producing the Bill—if the Home Secretary had published the Bill last week, and if each day this week, including Thursday, had been used to enable us to discuss separate stages on separate days? Consultation with outside bodies could have taken place between the sittings.

Mr. Newton

It has been necessary for full consideration to be given to these matters within Government. The policy was agreed collectively by the Government only last week. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has acted with commendable speed in the wake of that, and as a result we need to transact the business in the way laid down in the motion.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

First, what is the most recent precedent for the Government's recommendation of the procedure that we are being asked to follow? Secondly, can the Leader of the House explain—as the Home Secretary signally failed to do yesterday—the motivation for the Bill's being rushed through the House in this way?

Mr. Newton

I cannot immediately recall a precise precedent, but then I cannot recall precisely similar circumstances. Terrorism has been resumed in this country; the police have made clear their belief that they need these additional powers in order to have the maximum scope for combating further instances of that terrorism; and we are operating within a day or so of the Easter recess.

The hon. Gentleman made the same point in response to my business statement yesterday. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend made the case for the proposals absolutely clear in his own statement yesterday—and, indeed, that has been accepted by those on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

Everyone accepts that the Bill is very important. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify having allowed less than five minutes for the discussion of each amendment—presuming that all were selected—quite apart from any time spent on voting?

Mr. Newton

I defend it on the basis of my general judgment that the amount of time that we have provided for discussion of the Bill and the motion—to which I shall refer in a moment—is appropriate for proper debate of the proposals in the particular circumstances, and against the background of a resumption of terrorism on the mainland.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Over the 16 years in which I have been in the House, I have noticed that when legislation is guillotined it invariably goes wrong. Why can we not have real time in which to discuss what may—I do not know—be a perfectly valid Bill?

Mr. Newton

Let me repeat what I just said. I think that the motion provides appropriate time in the particular circumstances—Opposition Front Benchers have found that view persuasive on the basis of briefing that they have been freely given—and in view of the fact that the House is about to rise for the Easter recess. It will not surprise the House that, despite my support for the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, it gives me no pleasure whatever to be moving a timetable motion. It is in fact the first that I have moved for more than two years. I simply believe that, in the circumstances with which we are confronted, it is both sensible and necessary.

I am once again grateful, as I said yesterday, to the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for the constructive manner in which they acknowledged that, and made it clear that they would not stand in the way. Perhaps I might assure them in return, particularly the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who made some cautionary comments yesterday, that it does not in any way lessen my commitment following the Jopling reforms, during which time I have worked closely with her, to achieve the progress of legislation by voluntary understandings, when circumstances are normal, through the usual channels.

The motion provides—it is already obvious that it is controversial and will no doubt be the subject of further comment—that all stages of the Bill will be completed during this sitting. It provides three hours for debate on Second Reading, and then two hours for proceedings in a Committee of the House. Report and Third Reading will end three hours after the start of the Committee stage, which should allow an hour for Third Reading, less any time spent on Divisions at the end of the Committee stage. The remaining provisions are more or less standard for such motions.

As I have said, given the urgent need that we have identified and the exigencies of the calendar, I think that such provisions will generally—although I accept not universally—be regarded as reasonable, and I commend the motion to the House.

3.50 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)

We are today dealing with a Bill in a very unusual, if not unprecedented, manner. I should make it clear at the outset that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I said yesterday, we do not underestimate the importance of the fight against terrorism. It is on the basis of information given in security briefings to my hon. Friends that we are accepting the word of the Government that the Bill and the time scale are absolutely essential. However, I must emphasise, to the Leader of the House in particular, that our willingness to facilitate the passage of the Bill does not mean that we are happy about the position in which the Government have placed the House.

There are two separate matters. First, there is the fact that everyone—I believe—feels bounced into consideration of the legislation because of the lack of notice that has been given. More could have been done to ease that feeling among hon. Members. Secondly, there is a specific problem that the proceedings are subject to the guillotine motion that the Leader of the House has just moved.

On the need for the guillotine motion, I accept that if measures such as those in the Bill are deemed necessary on security grounds, it is reasonable for the Government to ensure that they get legislation through the House in the required time scale. On that basis, I shall not be voting against the timetable motion. That still begs the question, however, why the House has been bounced in such a manner into considering the legislation in these difficult circumstances today. I do not believe—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has already referred to the point—that hasty legislation is likely to be good legislation. There is always a danger that if we legislate in haste, we may implement defective provisions. As a result, all hon. Members are faced with significant difficulties. The time scale has meant that it has been very difficult for Members to table amendments. Indeed, a great deal of pressure has been put not only on Members but on Officers of the House in order for it to be feasible to consider the Bill properly today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Is there not an immense principle involved here—that one should never guillotine legislation that has implications for civil liberties?

Mrs. Taylor

There are always difficulties in saying never in politics. A balance must be reached in difficult situations such as this and people must weigh up competing claims, and that presents the House with an extra difficulty. That is why the time scale is providing so many difficulties and—if I may say so—so many suspicions on the part of hon. Members who believe that the Home Secretary and the Government are bouncing the legislation through and that we are taking their word on its merits.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

In answer to questions yesterday, the Home Secretary made it clear that the stop-and-search measures are comprehensive and will not apply simply to the rounding up of alleged terrorists. The net result will be that anybody can be caught in the net, and that is a matter of civil liberties and justice. The Home Secretary made the game plan abundantly clear. Is my hon. Friend seriously happy with that?

Mrs. Taylor

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—the shadow Home Secretary—has received significant assurances from the Home Secretary on such aspects as the monitoring of the workings of the new proposals, and he is satisfied with those assurances. The Home Secretary said in the House yesterday that many of the measures are technical, and added that he is trying to bring the powers of the police in Great Britain into line with those available to the police in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was, I think, referring to section 13A of the Act, but the Opposition have accepted the Home Secretary's assurances in good faith on the basis of what he said in the House and in conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.

Mr. McNamara

Can my hon. Friend show where those assurances on protection appear in the Bill? She said that the powers in the Bill were roughly the same as other powers, and that the Government were putting them on the statute book. Has she read paragraph 10 of the schedule which says that the powers are additional to any other powers and that those of common law or any other enactment are not affected? Will not the situation remain as it was before the passage of the Bill?

Mrs. Taylor

My hon. Friend—who follows these matters closely—was here yesterday when certain assurances were given by the Home Secretary, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pressed on these during our subsequent debates should the motion be carried by the House. The points that my hon. Friend are making—he is right to make them—are significant as they illustrate people's concerns that we are being bounced into legislation affecting civil liberties without adequate consultation.

Mr. Beith

Bearing in mind the fact that the original prevention of terrorism Act went through under a Labour Government in one day without a timetable motion, and that the hon. Lady has promised the Government—on behalf of the Opposition—full co-operation with the Bill, why does she think that the tight timetable motion is required? Who does she think will prevent the Bill getting on to the statute book?

Mrs. Taylor

A business motion was before the House in 1974 to make sure that that timetable was protected. At that time, the House was not up against a recess as we are at present. The Government are saying that they wish to protect the business so that there can be no delay or spill-over into the recess. If Ministers do not agree with that explanation, it is for them to explain. We are talking about Government business and while the Opposition are facilitating the process, we are not responsible for the legislation.

In view of what has been said, I hope that the Leader of the House and, indeed, the Home Secretary will understand that by introducing the legislation in this way, they have created many suspicions about the haste and many fears, especially about the changes to which my hon. Friends have referred in respect of section 13 of the prevention of terrorism Act. Any changes that involve or might involve individual civil liberties are bound to raise concerns. Even those who promote the restrictions in the Bill must recognise that there has to be a fine balance between individual rights and the safety of the public. The Home Secretary must take that concern on board when he makes his speech on Second Reading.

Mr. Madden

A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend rightly said that the powers in the Bill to stop and search pedestrians have applied in Northern Ireland for a long time. Is she aware of the outcome of those provisions in Northern Ireland? How many persons have been arrested, charged and convicted of terrorist offences? If my hon. Friend is unaware of that information—clearly, we have not been given any time to seek such information—does she believe that there is an overwhelming responsibility on the Home Secretary to convince us of the case later today?

Mrs. Taylor

Of course there is an overwhelming responsibility on the Home Secretary to convince the House of the case for his proposals. That is why it will be for him and not the Opposition to answer questions such as the one my hon. Friend has just raised. My understanding is that the powers are somewhat more limited than my hon. Friend suggested, although I acknowledge that he has a great deal of information on these matters.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Does the hon. Lady really think that the British people or the people of Northern Ireland would forgive my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary if he did not take the matter seriously ahead of the very significant anniversary this weekend?

Mrs. Taylor

We have not demurred from that view; that is one of the reasons why we have accepted the case put to us for dealing with the Bill in this way today. However, I do not think that that should make us any easier about accepting very unusual procedures. It is incumbent on Ministers on all occasions to provide as much notice as possible of any changes in legislation that they wish to make and that is why I regret the fact that we have not had more notice of these changes.

Mr. McNamara

Is my hon. Friend aware that Home Office briefings, as reported by the media yesterday, said that the Home Office did not expect any particular problems over the coming weekend?

Mrs. Taylor

I am not responsible for Home Office briefings; I am responsible for the collective decision of the shadow Cabinet which was made on the basis of the overall briefings that we received. We face a real problem and a real danger. If the Government say that there is a significant risk and if the Bill can minimise that risk and help to protect lives, we have a responsibility to facilitate its passage through the House. I hope that in view of all that has been said, we can have an explanation from the Home Secretary of why no indication whatever of the possibility of the changes was given during the recent debate on the prevention of terrorism Act just three weeks ago. It would have been wiser if the Home Secretary had given a proper indication that these changes were under consideration. We shall all have to make our own judgment about why he did not do so.

It is important that the House is consulted where possible. It is not just a matter of the pride of Members. It is a fact that the more Members are consulted and involved in decision making, the better the chances are that we shall get our legislation right and that the Government will not have to return to the House for further amendment because of deficiencies in the legislation.

In conclusion, we are not happy with the way in which the Government have forced such instant decisions upon the House, but, for the reasons that I gave earlier, we will not stand in the way of the Bill or the proposed time scale. However we trust, and ask for an assurance, that the House will not be treated in such a cavalier way in future.

4.4 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, amendment (a) in line 8, leave out 'two' and insert `five'.

We should start from the working assumption that the IRA is likely to seek to plant bombs at any time and that the means of so doing can be concealed more effectively than ever before. We do not need a high-level security briefing to know that. It was my assumption through much of the period of the ceasefire. Ministers conceded that it was well known the IRA remained active. Amendment (a) would give us more time to consider in Committee the details of how we seek to address this menace.

Let nobody assume that the reason for taking more time and having more careful consideration of the matter is any doubt about the possibility, or even the likelihood, of the IRA planning further bombing attacks. Nor is there any doubt about the threat to civil liberties that the IRA represents. There are few greater threats to civil liberties than having life and liberty taken away by a bomb. The question is by what means we can effectively prevent that and how can we ensure that those means are properly discussed in Parliament before they are placed on the statute book.

We must ask whether it is urgent that we should bring these measures on to the statute book. The police have been putting these proposals forward for a long time—some of them for years rather than months. Since the South Quay bombing, the Home Secretary has been well aware of the police's desire to have clarified their powers under the law that they use to mount searches and cordons. The provisions are primarily about the power that police can use in cordoning off an area or mounting a search.

The police do those things under existing powers. If there is a bomb threat or emergency this afternoon or tonight, the police will not wait for Parliament to change the law. They will use existing powers, as they have done in the past, and obtain the co-operation of the public in clearing an area of vehicles, stopping access to it and ensuring that members of public are not put in danger by entering it. That is what happens now. The police have reasonably requested that the powers under which they do that should be made clearer. We shall discuss that in detail later. There must be some doubt about whether they would depend on these provisions to do what needs to be done.

Even if we take it as read that for the purposes of this weekend the police need the powers, it was open to the Home Secretary to ensure that they received adequate parliamentary debate. He could have brought the Bill forward considerably earlier—even a week ago would have enabled its stages to be properly considered. The Bill was in his hands last Thursday or Friday, if not before. He could have published it then so that interested organisations and bodies, especially those dealing with the courts, could have brought forward proposals for amendments. Having failed to do any of those things, he could yesterday have ensured that the procedure that the House followed would take as much time as was available this week so that it could be done properly. I put it to the Leader of the House, who I think has himself been bounced into this to a considerable extent, that we could have sat on Thursday had he not been so insistent on getting away for holidays.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Holidays?

Mr. Beith

I suspect that that is the pressure on the Government. The hon. Gentleman may, like me, have plans to do constituency work on Thursday, but I suspect that the Government did not believe that they could keep their Members here on Thursday. Why else did they fail to take the obvious step of ensuring that on each day of this week, a stage of the Bill was taken? For example, the Bill could have been taken in the Lords later on Wednesday and Lords amendments could have been considered on Thursday. That would have enabled us to take the Committee stage on Wednesday, following Second Reading today.

There are a number of ways in which the procedures for the Bill could have been dealt with. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who seem to think that this is some kind of joke should realise that if there are no gaps between the stages of a Bill, the people outside the House, who will have to live with the legislation—some of them will have to arrest people in the street on the basis of it—will not get the chance to consider it properly.

I made some inquiries outside the Metropolitan police area and discovered that in other police authority areas, chief officers were not familiar with what was going on, and did not know the precise content of the proposed powers. Those are the sort of people whom we would consult between the stages of the Bill, to ensure that the powers reached the statute book in an appropriate form.

Sir Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)

Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 1994, when the House debated extensively the provisions of what is now section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which extended the powers of a constable to search without reasonable suspicion for an offensive weapon? All that is proposed here is to allow a constable to do the same thing in relation to a device—a device that could cause a serious explosion and massive loss of life. That is not a huge change of principle; it is a comparatively minor change. Moreover, the power is hedged around with all the provisions in the 1994 Act, in that a senior police officer has to authorise it and the Home Secretary has to keep a close watch on it. So what is the case for the extension of time, when we are debating something that is simple to understand?

Mr. Beith

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my opening remarks. I said that there was indeed a case for clarifying the powers that the police use in that connection, and that we needed to consider them carefully in detail. It may even be that when we come to those details we shall be able to deal with the matter more expeditiously than would now appear. However, the House will be up against the problem that if there is a substantial debate on the early clauses in Committee, when the axe falls every other clause will be read out as a number and passed into statute without any debate. That is how the timetable works. There is no Business Committee, and no subdivisions within the timetable period. If hon. Members become especially concerned with an early part of the Bill, its later provisions will not be debated at all.

There will be no Report stage, because the Government will accept no amendments. I was struck by the fact that the Leader of the House spoke as if he had already accepted that there would be no Report stage. He said something like, "That will be an hour for Third Reading"—but actually the hour is for both Report stage and Third Reading. The Leader of the House has already taken as part of the scheme of things the fact that the Government, however wrong they may be shown to be on detail, will not amend the Bill in Committee because they do not want a Report stage. So we can forget about a Report stage. And they will take the same attitude in another place.

That is government by decree. The Government have already decided the precise form that the Bill should take. Whenever Governments make such decisions, they get things wrong. Even with the best will in the world, the best organised Government in the world, with the finest Ministers and the finest civil servants, might still make mistakes. The present Government have a record of making mistakes. The Home Secretary and the Home Office certainly have a record of making mistakes about what the law is, and about the position in which they will be found when the matter comes before the courts. The Home Secretary has made so many such mistakes that he should be bound to expect it to happen in this instance.

Mr. Skinner

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman says on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—there will be no Report stage; it is pretty clear that the Government will get their own way; the debate will be time-limited; the matter should have been dealt with earlier; perhaps we should have sat on Thursday—he seems to be leading up to a great principle. He seems to be about to say not only that he will vote against the guillotine motion, but that such is the nature of the process that he and the whole Liberal Democrat party will vote against the principle of the Bill. Is that correct?

Mr. Beith

It is important that the hon. Gentleman should learn to recognise the difference between the procedures of this place and the contents of a Bill. [Interruption.] It is significant that the Labour party appears to find that idea funny. Labour in office, in both central and local government, sees no difference between the value in its eyes of what it wants to carry out, and the procedures by which we protect people's liberties, and protect proper democratic debate.

There is an important distinction to be drawn between those two factors. One of the things that the Leader of the House is paid to do is to be aware of that distinction, to represent it in Cabinet and to ensure that the House has procedures for controlling the way in which even the most pressing of matters on the Government's agenda are dealt with.

There is always a good reason for doing a bad thing. There is always some compelling argument for undermining the basis on which parliamentary democracy operates, and in a way that will cause damage in the future. I have absolutely no doubt that, just as hon. Members have asked for precedents for this motion, on a future occasion a Minister will say, "We have the precedent in the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996. That Act went through on a timetable motion in one day, with no amendments being accepted. Why should we not do that on any of a wide variety of other pieces of legislation?"

I remind the House that there was no timetable motion when the original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 went through; the House simply continued considering it until it had completed consideration of the amendments. It is possible to imagine a better timetable motion in which the allotted time was subdivided to ensure that each part of the Bill was discussed, but we do not have such a motion before us. The Standing Order relating to the Business Committee will not apply.

The time that is taken up in Committee will be taken off the time allocated for the Report stage and Third Reading. This timetable motion is very unsatisfactory. It has been moved to get the Government off the hook because they delayed introducing the Bill. The Home Secretary then went to the Leader of the House and said, "Can you get this Bill through this week?" The Leader of the House said, "I can do it only on a timetable motion, and a fairly stringent one. No problem; the Labour party will agree to it," and that was that. If that is how we are to run this place, we might as well go home. We are supposed to be here to ensure that the law is properly discussed and considered and that, when it gets on to the statute book, it achieves the purposes for which it was introduced.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Parliament's role in scrutinising legislation. However, since this legislation is being rushed through—it will not be considered and it will be subject to a guillotine motion—can he be clear about that? Does he agree that the best message we can send to the British people when the Government try to treat Parliament with contempt is to say no and vote against the Bill?

Mr. Beith

The opportunity to say no will arise today when we vote on the timetable motion. I hope that most Labour Members will vote with me when we reach that stage; but that remains to be seen.

Another principle that we want to make clear is that we are determined to fight terrorism and to assemble such powers as are necessary for that purpose and consistent with the maintenance of our civil liberties. That is why the Liberal Democrat party has voted for prevention of terrorism legislation when Labour opposed it and continued to vote for it when Labour abstained. We are prepared to make such decisions as long as we have a proper parliamentary process by which to do so. The House is being denied that process today, and it is an extremely bad precedent.

I am quite convinced that, in times to come, there will be criticism of the details of the legislation. Some ordinary police constable who seeks to exercise the powers granted under this legislation will find, when he is called to account, that those powers crumble in his hands. That will happen because the House did not properly consider the powers, which subsequently did not satisfy the purpose for which they were enacted.

I always remember the phrase used by the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he was Solicitor-General, when one of his Bills went before a Special Standing Committee—the type of Committee in which hon. Members scrutinise in detail what a Bill does. After a couple of sittings of the Committee, he announced that he had discovered that the Bill could not satisfy the purpose for which it was intended—it could not do so and it could not be made to do so. I am not suggesting that the proposals in the Bill are in quite such a mess as that, but it is almost certain that any proper, detailed consideration would discover defects in them and ways in which civil liberties could be more effectively protected. We will be denied that opportunity for scrutiny.

Therefore, I invite the House to extend the time available to the Committee. I also invite the House to ensure that amendments other than Government amendments are voted on at the end of the guillotine period. That measure is contained in an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), to which he will no doubt speak later.

Who in the House believes that all wisdom resides with Ministers? I hope that not even Conservative Members, let alone Opposition Members, believe that. Hon. Members must know of many occasions when Governments have been forced to accept amendments tabled by Back Benchers or by Opposition Members or have then tabled similar amendments to get the Bill into a proper form. That process will be denied tonight once the guillotine falls.

The people who wrote this Bill are the Government's draftsmen, and they are the only people who will be able to amend it. They will not amend it because the Government do not want that procedure to be brought into force. As I have said, it is government by decree—take it or leave it—and the police and the public will pay the price of it.

4.19 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the arrangements that you set in motion yesterday to allow the House to consider amendments; hon. Members are very grateful to you for that. I do not intend to delay the House on this matter—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has spoken about parliamentary procedure.

It is important to note that each and every power that we are debating today has been the subject of discussion by the police and the police forces since the explosion at the Baltic Exchange—at least that far back. They have discussed what should be done, what can be done and how it should be done.

Suddenly, the House is being bounced into passing this measure with 24 hours' notice and with limited time. As I pointed out to the Leader of the House, we will have less than five minutes to discuss each of the amendments. If we were properly to debate only one amendment and vote on it, in all probability the remaining time to debate the other amendments would be lost.

We are in a difficult position. Some people have been tempted to say that we should just let the Bill go through and thereby show our contempt for it and for the way in which the House has been treated. Others have said that we should have one debate on one amendment and try to make our points—if we are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker—either in the Second Reading debate or in the truncated part of the remaining hour after our two-hour debate on the amendment.

The position is difficult because the decision has been made not only by the Government but, sadly, with the agreement of my hon. Friends. It was patently obvious that something was going to happen once we changed our position on the prevention of terrorism Act. Once we had conceded that point without debate, we were easy pushovers for any other power that the Government might seek to introduce because we could not go back on that decision. That is the way things are at the moment: new powers are being proposed and if we vote against them we will be told that we are denying what we did a fortnight ago.

The Government knew a fortnight ago that they were likely to introduce these powers, but they did not mention them. They knew on Thursday that they were likely to introduce the powers, but there was no mention of them in the business statement. We know that because that was the occasion on which my hon. Friends first had their secret briefings. We are now asked to pass and to accept the legislation on the basis of a secret briefing—and when we are receiving conflicting evidence and signals.

We were told that the Bill has to pass by the weekend because of the significance of Easter in the Republic's calendar—I shall deal with this matter in the Second Reading debate—but last night we were told that we are not expecting any problems over Easter. The threat of Easter was given to my hon. Friends as the reason for this Bill, which was denied by Home Office briefings late last night. Have the Opposition been bounced into agreeing to this matter on the basis of briefings? How specific, direct and objective were the briefings that we have been given to make us accept the guillotine motion?

It is quite outrageous that there will be serious incursions into people's normal civil liberties and that we will have only two hours to discuss them. For the sake of the argument, let us say that the Government are justified in everything that they are doing. However, for them to expect us, as a House and as a democratic assembly, to allow the Bill to go through in two hours flat is a nonsense. People can be stopped in the streets in designated areas and searched, their outer clothing can be removed, their shoes can be removed and their hats can be removed—that will create problems in the Sikh community and in other communities. It has been suggested that we should let it go through in two hours, when the Government have known about the problems since the Baltic Exchange. That is a nonsense.

We should reject the timetable motion because, first, the Government knew about the need for this Bill and could have informed the House earlier; secondly, because their reasoning for bouncing the House into agreeing to the motion is dubious; and, thirdly, because if we are going to remove the civil liberties of many of our citizens, it is their entitlement that the House, the representatives of the people, should examine each amendment more carefully than it is possible to do in five minutes.

4.24 pm

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

I shall be brief. In a usual situation it would be unacceptable, procedurally, for a Bill to be introduced and pass through all its stages in one day. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said as much, and made it clear that there was a very special and very definite reason for so doing.

Furthermore, if indeed the Home Secretary has been able to convince the leaders of the Opposition that this is a necessary step, the House would be at fault if it did not pass the legislation in one day, as suggested. There are precedents for so doing; we need not rehearse them. They are known, but they are only precedents of the most extreme nature.

If certain outrages were perpetrated in this country between now and when the House returns and we had not taken these measures, we should be very much to blame. Although, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I do not like this procedure, I can see the need for it. As the Leader of the House and hon. Members on both Front Benches said, no hon. Member likes having to do it but, as it is necessary, we should proceed—and proceed quickly, not spend time discussing the timetable motion.

4.26 pm

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the Leader of the House say that he was proposing the motion to enable the House to proceed in a sensible and orderly way. There is nothing sensible or orderly about proposing that, in less than six hours, we debate the detail of draconian legislation that, if passed, will deprive many people of their basic civil rights and that is of questionable value in the campaign against terrorism. By proposing the motion, the Government are treating Parliament with contempt.

I was a Member of the House 22 years ago when the House debated the original Act—the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. As has been said, no timetable motion was deemed necessary then and the legislation passed through both Houses in approximately 48 hours. It was, in retrospect, seen not to be the good legislation that many people had thought it might be. It was rushed through, and I repeat the word "rushed" because, despite the fact that there was no guillotine or timetable motion, it passed through both Houses with inordinate haste. It was in the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham bombings, when there was almost a nationwide knee-jerk reaction; obviously, people were outraged by such atrocities. Many people who were outraged at the time now feel, in retrospect, that the House did not deal with the situation in the best way possible. The legislation that was rushed through Parliament did not help to catch the real culprits in the Birmingham bombings. No fewer than 27,000 people—the vast majority of whom were innocent—have been detained under the prevention of terrorism Act in the past 22 years. I do not think that the precedents for rushing through legislation are good, even when the motive—trying to defeat terrorism—is.

I am amazed also that it is less than three weeks since the House debated the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. Some time was allocated for the debate—perhaps not as much as several hon. Members would have liked, but I had the opportunity to make a five-minute contribution, as did other hon. Members. In opening and in summing up the debate, Ministers did not hint at the need for additional powers. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who I believe is a member of the Security Commission and has access to security information—suggested that such a proposal has probably been lying around in the Home Office collecting dust for some months, if not years. Therefore, I think that it is incumbent on the Home Secretary to tell us why the dust is now being shaken from the legislation and why it is being put before the House.

I do not understand it. Less than three weeks ago, the Home Secretary seemed quite satisfied with the status quo of the powers in the prevention of terrorism Act. He told us that Lord Lloyd of Berwick is reviewing the legislation. Has Lord Lloyd issued an interim report Stating that the powers in the existing prevention of terrorism Act are inadequate and putting the case for additional powers? I do not believe that further draconian measures are justified at this stage—particularly powers to stop and search people who are going about their lawful activities.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

I have listened with great sympathy to my hon. Friend's remarks. It clearly would have been far preferable if the Home Secretary had anticipated, as it were, the 80th anniversary of the Dublin uprising of 1916 and tabled amendments to be debated properly when the Act was renewed a fortnight ago. I accept that point and I fully understand my hon. Friend's feelings.

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises, however, that, if the Government receive serious information about a renewed threat, we have a duty to err on the side of caution and to protect our own people. I speak as a Member of Parliament who represents one of the two constituencies in Tower Hamlets where the appalling atrocity was committed not long ago. People might not understand it if passionate defenders of the rights of the individual, such as my hon. Friend, did not consider that fact.

Mr. Canavan

I understand my right hon. Friend's point of view: he obviously speaks in defence of his constituents. My fear is that the Bill could be counter-productive because, in the campaign against terrorism—which is absolutely legitimate and necessary to defend my constituents, my right hon. Friend's constituents and those of every right hon. and hon. Member—good relations between the police and the community are absolutely essential.

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech that is much more suitable to a Second Reading debate, and I would be glad to hear it at that time. For the moment, however, it would be more appropriate for him to refer to the guillotine and the timetable motion.

Mr. Canavan

As we are debating the timetable motion rather than considering the Bill on Second Reading, I am sorry not to be able to go into more detail.

We should be careful, however, about rushing through legislation that could be counter-productive in the campaign against terrorism. We all want effective powers to defeat terrorism, but Parliament should be given the time and the opportunity carefully to scrutinise such measures to ensure that they are necessary, that they are effective and, above all, that they are not counter-productive. So far, I have not been convinced on any of those counts.

If time permits, during the subsequent debate I might be persuaded by the Home Secretary or other hon. Members of the need for powers of search regarding cargoes at ports or uninhabited properties, or powers to impose parking restrictions and cordon off certain areas. I am not keen on such measures, but I might be persuaded of them during the debate. I am absolutely opposed to the powers of stopping and searching innocent people and no one can accuse me of being soft on law and order.

If we are looking to rush through emergency legislation in a few hours between now and the Easter recess, I honestly believe that there is a stronger case—and that there would be widespread public support—for rushing through emergency legislation on gun control in view of the recent Dunblane massacre. I tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by more than 120 hon. Members, calling for a ban on the private possession of handguns and a stricter control of all firearms. Not one Tory Member supported it. The Home Secretary continues to allow gunmen to walk the streets while innocent people can be stopped and searched while going about their lawful business.

4.37 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I am disappointed that the Government have tabled a guillotine motion. They could at least have looked back to the original prevention of terrorist legislation in 1974 and followed that model. At that time, we had a reasonable amount of time on Second Reading and a lengthy debate on amendments. The Government made it quite clear that they were prepared to—and did—accept some of the amendments. Most important, the Government firmly told Parliament, "It is an emergency measure. We want to do it now, but we shall return to it and do it properly if we want to keep it for any length of time."

The measure was in force for 12 months. It then lapsed and was replaced by an Act of Parliament that received full scrutiny in Committee and the House had the opportunity to consider it with care.

If the Government are telling us that there will be a particular crisis over the next weekend, the next three weeks or the next three months and that they need to rush through legislation that severely restricts individuals' rights because they believe the threat to be so great, I can understand the need for it. If that is indeed what they want, they should seriously consider new clause 1, which proposes that the Act should cease to have effect after four months—a perfectly reasonable argument.

During yesterday's statement, the Home Secretary seemed to be arguing for this option half the time; but during the other half, he seemed to be suggesting that the measure is not really very draconian or important: it is just designed to clarify powers that the police think already exist. If the Government are aiming at clarity, surely we should take our time and produce carefully thought out legislation that is easy to enforce. The Government will have to make up their mind.

My first reason for opposing the motion is that the Government are running two things together—putting in place emergency legislation that, at the same time, they claim is designed merely to provide clarity.

Moreover, the Home Secretary suggested yesterday that we should not worry too much because he was going to produce guidance for police officers. That is welcome; most of us find it quite difficult to understand new legislation, although police officers may be better at it than some. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to produce guidance, why does he not follow the normal procedures of the House? The Minister in charge of a Bill usually circulates guidance in draft form. If the Home Secretary really wants clarity and proper debate, where is his draft guidance to show us what he believes the legislation is intended to do? In the panic to get the Bill through, hon. Members are being given no chance to see the accompanying guidance.

This is a particularly ungenerous and stupid guillotine. There have been many guillotines to ensure that the House finishes at a given time, but they have allowed flexibility within the time allotted. If we shorten the three-hour debate allowed on the guillotine motion, we gain no time to discuss the amendments. If we shorten the lengthy debating time allowed for Second Reading, we gain no time to consider amendments. The Leader of the House must realise that he should have introduced the guillotine motion allowing the House flexibility. Instead, we shall have very little time to debate the amendments.

The provisional selection of amendments appears to allow about 12 minutes per group. For proper scrutiny to take place, the Leader of the House should have offered us flexibility as between the time allowed for various debates.

The Home Secretary should tell us what he wants. Does he want emergency legislation, in which case he could accept new clause 1, which would stop the Act after four months, or does he want clarity? If it is the latter, let us go through the proper Committee procedures and replace the Act with something better—if necessary, at the end of that time. As it is, I cannot possibly support the guillotine motion.

4.43 pm

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

Hindsight is a wonderful debating tool. "We could have done this," is fair comment. "Why didn't we do that?" is equally fair comment. Still, we are where we are this afternoon, one day before a recess and a few days before Easter, with all its significance.

The House faces a stark choice. Either we stick with our usual procedures and defend the rights of the House as against those of the Executive, or we modify our procedures and take a slight chance with the wording of the Bill in order to minimise the risk of another atrocity.

If, by standing on our dignity this afternoon, the House fails to prevent just one more death of an innocent person, the nation will never forgive us.

4.44 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

This procedure underlines the weakness of the House of Commons and the system of patronage in it. If the House were independent of the Executive, and between 80 and 100 Conservative Members were not bound by patronage to vote for the Government, and if a similar number of Opposition Members were not similarly bound, the legislation would not be introduced in this manner. We would certainly not be discussing a three-hour guillotine motion followed by a truncated debate on a very serious issue.

The history of guillotine motions and rushed legislation is not a happy one. The original PTA was rushed through the House and has since been universally condemned as a human rights aberration and as denying many people the liberty to which they are entitled. Today, I suspect that we are repeating the mistakes of the past—

Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle)

I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. I admire those who, like him, put civil liberties above all else, but what I find difficult to understand about his point of view is his apparent failure to recognise that the greatest civil liberty is the freedom to walk the streets of a town with some certainty of not being blown to smithereens by the most ruthless, cold-blooded terrorist organisation that the world has ever seen.

Mr. Corbyn

Obviously, the liberty to walk the streets of a person's home place and to live a life of peace is central. What I am not convinced of is the idea that this legislation will achieve anything besides giving the police excessive powers to stop and search people at random. That will lead to a deterioration in relations between the police and the community. Furthermore, it will do nothing to solve the problems of terrorism, which are basically political in origin and therefore require a political solution. The sorry experience of Northern Ireland since 1969 has shown that we need something more than repressive legislation to solve the problem. I am convinced that rushing through legislation of this kind, denying Members the opportunity to debate it properly and denying the public the chance to comment on it before it is discussed, is a sign of contempt for the democratic process by which we arrived here in the first place.

Only after protests yesterday were amendments to the Bill allowed. I am grateful to all occupants of the Chair for allowing them, but the Government should never have put the House in this position in the first place.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

In respect of stop-and-search powers and the lacuna in section 13A of the PTA, can my hon. Friend tell me how many IRA terrorists whom he knows are black? Whom does he think will be stopped on the streets of London?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. The hon. Gentleman may like to provide that information later this evening, but it is not appropriate to a guillotine motion debate.

Mr. Corbyn

Either on Second Reading or outside, I shall certainly discuss experience of the PTA with my hon. Friend.

We have been presented with a ludicrous choice of options at the conclusion of this debate. We have almost as much time on the guillotine motion as on the substance of the Bill. During the Committee, there are a possible 17 debates to be held, all on important matters. Those of us who tabled amendments certainly thought them through carefully, albeit quickly, last night. The idea that we can properly debate 17 issues in three hours, if necessary voting on all of them, is just not credible. Time will run out, and if the House divides on earlier amendments, we shall not reach the later ones, which will therefore receive no consideration at all.

The likelihood is that there will be a number of legal challenges to parts of the Bill. It will look pretty thin if the Home Secretary's defence in court some years hence is that Parliament did not even discuss the matter. Parliament will not have discussed the matter because the Home Secretary proposed a motion to deny the House the right to discuss it and to deny to hon. Members the right to table amendments.

When we have a difficulty or an emergency, it is up to the Home Secretary to convince people that the difficulty or emergency exists. I cannot speak for everybody, but many people in my constituency have suffered under the prevention of terrorism Act in the past. Many people now recognise that the PTA is obsolete and unnecessary legislation and a denial of civil liberties. The Bill is a further denial of civil liberties and the House should not debate it today. The Bill should be laid on the Table so that we can discuss it properly after due consideration, and so that all interested parties can put forward their points of view.

If Parliament is to mean anything, it must be able to represent the views of the people who have sent us here. It is simply not possible to do that if we rush legislation through less than 24 hours after its existence has even been intimated in the media by the Home Secretary. I hope that the House will not agree to the guillotine motion and, therefore, will not enable debate to take place on the Bill today.

4.50 pm

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

Like other Opposition Members, I have to confess that I remain totally confused and uncertain about why we are being asked to rush such important legislation through the House in less than 24 hours. If we listen to the Home Secretary and to the Leader of the House, we get two conflicting explanations. The Home Secretary said yesterday: In recent weeks, I have discussed with senior police officers whether there were any additional powers that would strengthen their ability to safeguard the public. I have listened carefully to points that they made. The proposals that I am announcing today are designed to meet the real needs that they have identified. The additional powers will be accompanied by proper safeguards to ensure that they are used only where there is a real operational requirement. They are essentially practical and technical measures, but I believe that they are necessary changes, which will increase public safety."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 35.]

The Leader of the House this afternoon, however, chose to argue that we were living in unusual, if not unique, circumstances. I again failed to be convinced about those unusual, if not unique, circumstances. Sadly, over the past 25 years, we have experienced terrorist outrages, including serious incidents in London. We have also experienced ceasefires introduced by paramilitary groups and, sadly, those ceasefires have been withdrawn. We can all also agree that we have had Easter before. I therefore do not understand the unusual and unique circumstances that the Leader of the House, unlike the Home Secretary, has used to justify this emergency legislation.

The fact that we have a timetable motion—a guillotine—to drive the measure through the House in such a short space of time reveals the Government's basic lack of confidence in their case. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said earlier, if the Government were so convinced of the need for the legislation, why on earth could they not have the confidence to come to the House and convince us of the need without a guillotine motion? If nothing else, such an approach would have provided additional time for us to consider the measure. The guillotine motion is very revealing.

What is unusual and unique is that we have a peace process. It may be that the peace process is—sadly—losing momentum and unravelling, but what signal and what message would be sent out by the British House of Commons this afternoon on the peace process by rushing through draconian emergency legislation as we are being invited to do?

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

My hon. Friend is right to say that the peace process is in some difficulty at the moment. Will he also acknowledge that the reason for the difficulty is that the IRA decided unilaterally to break the ceasefire and has committed bomb outrages since?

Mr. Madden

That is absolutely right, but I am sad that my hon. Friend has been persuaded of the case for this emergency legislation to be rushed through the House. In the IRA, the people who will be aided and abetted by what we are being asked to do this afternoon will be the hawks, the hard men and the people who want to continue the terror campaign.

I remember many of those magnificent and impressive peace demonstrations that took place in London, Belfast and Dublin. I do not recall any of the placards saying "Please renew the PTA" or "Please extend the PTA". Not one of those demonstrations called for the Bill.

When the Home Secretary made his statement yesterday, I regret that he was not able to say a word about a matter that would be of major assistance to rebuilding momentum in the peace process, marginalising the hard men in the IRA and restoring the ceasefire. I refer to the repatriation of Irish prisoners to the Irish Republic. I hope that the Home Secretary will soon be able to make a decision about repatriating Patrick Kelly and others who have applied to be transferred to prisons in the Irish Republic. In my view, that would make a major contribution to rebuilding confidence in, and the momentum of, the peace process.

This is not a minor Bill. It consists of seven clauses and a schedule. It has not been produced in the last week. As my hon. Friends have suggested, it has been sitting in the Home Office for a considerable time. We must ask ourselves why the Government have chosen this moment to bring it out of the filing cabinet and invite the House of Commons to pass it. I am not convinced by the case that has been made. Why were we not given even a scintilla of information about the proposals by the Home Secretary when the PTA was renewed on 14 March? I would have thought that that would have been a way of seeking and obtaining the confidence of the House, but that is not this Home Secretary's way.

On that occasion, the Home Secretary spent most of his time gratuitously insulting my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for deciding officially that the Labour party would not oppose the renewal of the PTA but would abstain. Yesterday, however, it was all bouquets and praise for my hon. Friend. That change of attitude and behaviour in the Home Secretary came because he wanted something from the official Opposition, but not all of us in the Labour party will abstain on this measure tonight. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will oppose the guillotine motion; will vote against Second Reading; will propose amendments, if we get the chance; and will vote against Third Reading.

Mr. Greg Pope (Hyndburn)

My hon. Friend has made an interesting point in suggesting that the Bill is being rushed through so quickly so as to gain party political advantage for the Government. If that is the case and if that is what my hon. Friend believes, would it not be the utmost foolishness to aid and abet the Home Secretary by voting against the Bill?

Mr. Madden

I have always believed that people should act as they believe. I believe that the Bill is thoroughly bad and, therefore, I will vote against it as a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend should understand that the Lobby does not belong to anyone. We vote as individual Members representing our constituents. We are asked to exercise our best judgment on their behalf in all matters, and that is what I intend to do on this occasion, as I have done on all previous occasions.

I regret that the Bill is being rushed through because it denies us all an opportunity to consult individuals and groups in Northern Ireland who for many years have had to put up with the search powers that are proposed in the Bill. When the Home Secretary winds up, will he say how many arrests, charges and convictions for terrorist-related crimes have resulted from the powers to search pedestrians that are available in Northern Ireland, which are similar to the ones in the Bill?

I gave the Home Secretary's office notice this morning of a question about information which I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to provide later in the debate. In his statement yesterday, he said: It may reassure the House to know that the existing stop-and-search powers have been invoked only in the City of London and in the Metropolitan police areas in the aftermath of South Quay. In the City, the powers have applied for the full 28 days allowed on each occasion; in the much larger Metropolitan police district, they have been applied for periods of between seven and 10 days at a time. They remain in force at the moment, and rightly so."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 36.]

How many people have been arrested, charged and convicted of terrorist-related crimes as a result of those powers? How do the existing stop-and-search powers vary from those in the Bill? It is also important for the House and the public to be absolutely clear about what these powers imply.

If the Government had not subjected us to the panic measure of trying to push the Bill through the House, we would have been able to talk to people in Northern Ireland about their experiences of what happens and what has happened there over many years as a result of such powers. I remind the House that clause 1(2) states: This section confers on any constable in uniform power to stop any pedestrian and search him, or anything carried by him, for articles of a kind which could be used for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism.

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 of that kind.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary spoke about safeguards, and today, several of my hon. Friends asked about those. What are they? They do not appear in the Bill, but unless they are real, we can rightly claim that the legislation is a return to the hated sus law. Under the legislation, for a period of up to 28 days, large numbers of people, in a completely arbitrary area, can be stopped and searched without any explanation or justification. Because of the time factor, we have not been able to take evidence on that issue. We have not been able to table amendments and we shall certainly not have adequate discussion of the matter.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, in politics generally and in Irish politics in particular, perception is all. I appeal not only to the Home Secretary but to the Government to recognise what will be the perception of the Bill that we are being asked to rush through. It will be exploited by the paramilitaries, whose propaganda machine will go into overdrive. They will say that the Brits have not learnt anything and will not learn anything, and that the only way forward is a return to terror and bombing.

Before the ceasefires came about, the Government promised that if they were introduced they would show generosity and imagination. It gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to say that, since the ceasefires were withdrawn a few months ago, and during the period that they were in operation from the summer of 1994, such generosity and imagination were singularly absent from all that the Government did. It was a question of delay and obstruction and of playing for time, and that played into the hands of those who were never in favour of the peace process or of democracy and who always argued that they could obtain their objectives by terror. The Government were materially at fault and I am disappointed to have witnessed that.

I am disappointed that, rather than being positive in relation to the peace process and Northern Ireland, we are again returning to the measures that have failed in the past. They are not relevant to today's problem. We need to show generosity and imagination to ensure that the peace process becomes reality. We must not return to this tired, arbitrary and possibly illegal legislation that has so failed us in the past.

5.6 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

No one should believe that party advantage is sought from the guillotine motion. No one should work on the assumption that any hon. Member wants to speak in a way that would give any comfort to Sinn Fein, the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries. People outside want to be sure that, irrespective of our views on civil liberties or on other issues, every hon. Member wants to reduce the number of victims and to make sure that the relevant powers are available to those who bravely answer every blue-light call to areas in which there may be bombs or to those who intercept people who may be carrying firearms. They deserve support in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Bill contains critical issues. Most people will understand that most of the Bill's powers already exist in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland. I do not think that people will see an issue of principle. I represent part of the borough of Greenwich, which had the experience of the Woolwich pub bomb, and of bombs at Government house, at the entrance to the Royal Artillery barracks and at Court road in Eltham at the Army resettlement offices.

People in my constituency and, I am sure, in Tower Hamlets and in many other parts of the country, want to be sure that, in all parts of the House and across the political spectrum from left to right, people are willing to consider powers for the police on their merits.

Three matters limit what the IRA can do. The first is what it thinks will achieve its aims. It will not seriously believe that the additional and limited police powers will affect its aims that much. IRA members know that the biggest pressure on them comes from Irish people who say in growing numbers and more and more often, whether in Dublin, Derry or London, "The violence is not being done in our name. End it now." As the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) has said in the past and as all hon. Members say, there is a fundamental right to life.

The second limit on the IRA is its physical capability. The powers that are being sought will help to make it possible to intercept, or to require people to show that they are not carrying materials that may be of some use in a terrorist attack. That is a clear sign that the legislation is proportionate. The last limitation on what terrorists can do is what they think their supporters will tolerate. We must go on trying to encourage people to ask questions about why the violence returned. Some people suspect—I fear that I am one of them—that Sinn Fein-IRA have not yet decided that they seriously want talks. Every time that that becomes possible they seem to back away, taking action or setting preconditions of some kind.

That, however, is a subject for another debate. The question before us now is whether it is right for us, as a democratic House, to allow the time for debate of the Bill. There has been a reference to an attack on democracy. I think that the attacks on democracy happened when a bomb went off in the police canteen of Westminster Hall, when Airey Neave was blown up as he left the House of Commons car park just before the 1979 election and when a terrorist walked into Robert Bradford's constituency surgery and killed him.

We accept the same risks as the police, and the populations of Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain. We must not give anyone the impression that there is an excuse for a return to violence in allowing the time proposed by the Government. I hope that the Bill will be passed, that the amendments can be considered in the time available and that the powers will not need to be used—or, at least, will not need to be used very often. Throughout these islands—in Ireland, where Sinn Fein-IRA secure less than 3 per cent. of the vote; in the north of Ireland, where they secure a slightly larger proportion, but nowhere near the majority of the nationalist vote; and in Great Britain, where virtually no one gives Sinn Fein-IRA any comfort—we should be saying that we do not want to have to retain these powers for long. We believe that there should be a commitment on all sides to create the necessary conditions, come to terms with history, put right what is wrong and ensure that there is no return to violence.

5.11 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

Those of us who will oppose both the timetable motion and the Bill will undoubtedly be criticised for being "soft on terrorism".

Mr. Bowen Wells (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Barnes

Our record shows, however, that we have taken a strong stand against paramilitary activity from any source, and any form of violence and intimidation on the part of any group. Having opposed the actions of the IRA and Sinn Fein in particular, I am by no means flavour of the month in "Republican News". Although there is clearly a distinction between my views and those of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), we are united in the struggle against violence and intimidation. We are joint presidents of a group called New Dialogue, which espouses such principles. I cannot merely wish to give succour to IRA-Sinn Fein; I must have other reasons for arguing in this way.

Several justifications have been advanced for the timetable motion. First, it has been pointed out that the recess is about to begin, and that speedy action must therefore be taken. Secondly, it appears that some hon. Members are in possession of information that is not generally available, and that some terror—we know not what—is just round the corner. If we do not grant the powers, we shall be criticised for failing to act, but we also have a duty as democrats to study and understand the different positions involved, and to act only when we are convinced that there are strong reasons for acting.

The argument about the recess strikes me as nonsensical. We are in control of our own timetable and our own procedures. If it is so urgent for the Bill to be passed before Easter, we can still consider it fully tomorrow and on Thursday, if we delay the recess. Our other commitments, which supposedly mean that we must dash away, cannot be as important as the Bill is agreed to be by hon. Members on both sides of the House. According to the Government, it is so important that it must be rushed through; but others have argued that it is so important that the House must be able to examine and debate it in detail. I believe that the arguments for the timetable are wholly inadequate, and can easily be surmounted.

The Liberal Democrats have tabled four amendments. I am not sure what they will do if those amendments are carried. Are they still saying that they will oppose the timetable motion? I support the amendments, because if they were carried and the motion were subsequently carried as well, we would at least have an opportunity to do certain things—but they are only bits and pieces. As was suggested by the thrust of the speech of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), we should vote against the motion.

It has been said that we shall not have enough time to deal with the whole range of amendments. Moreover, in Committee we are entitled to debate clause stand part as well as amendments. I strongly object to the powers to stop and search pedestrians that are contained in clause 1. Other powers, such as the power enabling police as well as customs officers to search freight, strike me as entirely sensible, and I consider it right for us to discuss the possibilities. If it were possible for us to defeat the motion that clause 1 stand part of the Bill, we might be in a different position; but we need time for consideration. If a major section of the Bill were suddenly lost, we should have to give proper scrutiny to what remained. Pushing measures through so hastily constitutes a serious interference with parliamentary procedures and democracy.

Where has the Bill been? Has it been lying around in the files gathering dust? The Home Secretary suggested that it had not. That means that it was cobbled together at the last moment to deal with some crisis, which means that there is an even greater case for a proper, detailed investigation in the House: civil servants and others may not have scrutinised it sufficiently during the drafting process. We need time, and we need to defeat the timetable motion.

5.18 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

Legislation that is made on the hoof is invariably poor and defective. I assure the Home Secretary that I do not want to be blown up, either at Easter or at any other time; my constituents do not want to be blown up, and I am sure that he does not want to be blown up either. In fact, my constituents are probably more likely to be blown up than the Home Secretary, as was demonstrated by the cowardly attack that caused the explosion in the east end. Neither my constituents nor I can travel around in bullet-proof, chauffeur-driven limos.

When my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said that those who opposed the timetable motion or the Bill would be accused of being soft on terrorism, I heard a sedentary "Hear, hear" from one of the limo-occupiers on the Government Front Bench. That is a monstrous suggestion.

I do not want my civil liberties to be blown up either. I cannot agree to the speedy process because, frankly, it is leading the way to repenting at leisure. We are asked to put on the statute book legislation that is not temporary. We all know how the PTA came about. I would not mind what was going on if the Home Secretary told us that the measures would be implemented only for a set period and we could see an end. If measures needed to be passed urgently before Easter, I could understand the point made, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire that we do not have to go into recess. Easter does not start until Good Friday. I assume that that is the period that we are talking about. There is not a great deal of important business tabled for tomorrow, and Thursday we are in recess. Why can we not take more time?

Reasonable people will have to be convinced by the Bill. If the Home Secretary can make a good case, why does he have to sacrifice and undermine it by ramming the Bill through the House and the other place? That is why I am uneasy about it. I would like to hear more about the reasoning behind the Bill and have more time to consider it. When dealing with civil liberties, we should not be so ready to be stampeded. There is a whiff of panic in the air, and that gets me. I always feel that the terrorists are winning when we turn ourselves inside out, brush aside all our normal procedures, ram things through, override arguments and deride people who have a contrary point of view. We imprison ourselves, demean our institution, and the terrorist wins when we do such things in the Houses of Parliament.

I cannot agree with the motion. I want far more safeguards, and I want to hear more and have the chance to have a go at the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary said yesterday that the powers of the police would be extended under section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to enable them to stop and search pedestrians",

and he added: The police are fully aware that this new power will need to be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 35-6.]

I say hear, hear to that.

I repeat that I want to know whether the power will be monitored. Although I understand that it will, will it be monitored according to skin colour? I know what will happen in the east end where I live: Afro-Caribbeans and Asians will be stopped. As far as I am aware, the IRA does not have any people of Afro-Caribbean or Asian descent in its ranks. I do not know that, but I am probably on certain ground in suggesting it, and I want to know whether such safeguards will be written into the Bill. We should be given time to contemplate such matters.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, the timetable motion is to suit our convenience. Why can we not talk about the Bill on Thursday? If the measures are that important, surely we must give them more consideration; then people would be convinced not only that we were taking the matter seriously but that we were taking our own liberties and rights in the House seriously. I am afraid that, in the circumstances, I shall oppose the guillotine motion and support the Liberal Democrats in the Division Lobby.

5.22 pm

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

All rushed legislation is bad, and rushed legislation on terrorism is particularly bad because, once again, it allows the terrorist to set the political agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made that point very effectively.

As I understand it, the Leader of the House is asking today—it has been talked about over the past day or two—for very specific powers as an addendum to the prevention of terrorism Act. I accept that the Bill is not part of the PTA, with its exclusion orders and its tendency to round people up, question them and then release them without charge. We should not confuse the two, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to make that point.

I say to the Leader of the House that the case for the Bill and the motion is quite simple and bald. He is telling the House, and through the House the nation, that the Government have judged that there is a very real threat over the next couple of weeks, and that that threat arises from the ability to carry bombs more easily than before. I cannot help but believe that that judgment arises very understandably from the fear that something that happened on one of the London buses some weeks ago will be repeated. That is a very real and understandable fear, and if the Government presented their case that way, there would be greater understanding of their position.

When the Home Secretary tries to rush such legislation through, he has to have the support and, as it were, the confidence of the House. I must be critical, and I shall measure my words as best I can. I do not think that the Home Secretary has done that well over recent years. I have said on many occasions that I think that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have acted in relation to Northern Ireland with considerable statesmanship. I have to say that that statesmanship feeling is lacking in the Home Secretary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has made the point on many occasions—and he is right—about the transfer of prisoners. It would not be appropriate to go down that road now, but I shall note, and the House will note, that after the hunger strike the previous Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, introduced in Northern Ireland changes in the prison service that met many of the hunger strikers' demands. That was done to end hunger strikes.

When the Home Secretary seeks the confidence of the House, he must acknowledge that, fairly or unfairly—perhaps I am being unfair—he is seen as being a Home Secretary who, in the Cabinet, has dragged his feet on the peace process. That may be unfair, but he is clearly perceived as having done that, and at times he almost boasts of it in a macho way. Of course people think of the Tory party's Maples memorandum and the Government's attempt to try to divide the Labour party. Perception is not reality, but the Home Secretary must know that in politics, to coin a phrase, perception is nine tenths of reality. The Home Secretary is not perceived as someone who carries confidence as either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have done if they had asked the House for such powers.

I think that the Home Secretary could carry the House with him. The Bill would not be a bad part of what I consider to be generally a bad Act. The Bill is not a renewal of the sus law, and if I get the opportunity to say that later, I shall do so. The safeguards in clause 1 are clear in terms of time and place, and only a senior officer can permit certain things to happen. They are not ideal or what I would want, but if the Government judge that there is a danger in the coming weeks and that the police need the powers for that purpose, we can listen to them.

I say to the Home Secretary, please, if he wants such confidence from the House of Commons and if we are to win the battle, for all the reasons that a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out about the dangers of rushing in to meet a terrorist threat—which pleases the terrorists, because they see the British people rushing around abandoning their democratic procedures to get legislation through to deal with the problem that they have created—we have to be rather more sophisticated than we are being at times at present.

I also say to the Home Secretary that I am willing to start again after today. I have made my points today and I think that they are very important. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes them on board and that in future he will have no difficulty in carrying the House if he feels that the police need specific powers to deal with a specific crisis for a period.

5.27 pm

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said earlier, and as I made clear in the House yesterday, Parliament has always, and rightly, been very reluctant to allow its normal time scales and procedures to be bypassed. Hasty legislation all too often turns out to be ill drafted and unclear. That is why the House has been jealous in guarding its procedures, which ensure due consideration of any measure. The procedures include a strong convention that two clear weekends should elapse between the tabling of a Bill and its Second Reading, and that there should also be a period for reflection between Second Reading, detailed consideration in Committee, Report and Third Reading.

Those procedures are important in respect of any Bill, however trivial. They are doubly important in respect of Bills that affect an individual's liberty and the public's safety. We all acknowledge, as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said earlier, that the procedures should be foreshortened only in the most exceptional circumstances.

Last Thursday, the Home Secretary asked to see me to seek the official Opposition's co-operation in agreeing the Bill and in getting it through the House today on a guillotine. He gave me the reasons why he had been persuaded of its necessity and why, in his view, it was necessary to pass all its stages by Easter. After our discussion, I told him that I would need to consult my colleagues and that we would let him have our decision by Monday. In the time available, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and I consulted as many colleagues—in the shadow Cabinet and outside—as we could. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and I sought and received additional security briefings on Monday morning. We then came to the collective view that, although of course we were concerned at the short notice that we had been given, the proposed Bill was a responsible and appropriate reaction to the threat of which we had been made aware.

I told the Home Secretary this, and I also sought from him—and later gained—safeguards additional to those in the draft Bill. We can discuss these safeguards further on Second Reading and in Committee, and we will be able later today to discuss in detail the contents of the Bill. But in coming to a conclusion about the necessity for the guillotine, my colleagues and I examined most closely the powers in the Bill—particularly those in clause 1. We examined how far clause 1 extended the existing section 13A, and we looked at the attitude that we had adopted—as well as the Government—when clause 13A was debated in the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. We discussed the reasons for the extension and, above all, why it was needed to introduce the extension, along with the other powers, with such speed.

I shall deal with the issues in turn as they affected our judgment on whether the guillotine was necessary. First, we looked at how far new section 13B, in clause 1, would extend the current powers under section 13A. The proposed new section will put the searches of pedestrians on the same basis as searches of vehicle occupants. I must tell my hon. Friends that there are more safeguards for pedestrians than there are for vehicle occupants. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that outer body searches are all that are allowed, and not strip searches.

The power is more circumscribed than that for vehicle occupants, and includes a requirement that if a chief police officer requires the power for more than 48 hours, he must get the approval of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's approval can last initially for a further 26 days. No prosecution of any offence arising under the powers can take place without the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in addition, we have secured safeguards on monitoring. A regular report on the exercise of the powers will also be made to Parliament.

Mr. Madden

What is the difference between the stop-and-search powers that have been in operation in the past month in the City and the Metropolitan police area and those proposed in the Bill? How many people have been arrested and charged with terrorist-related crimes as a result of such searches in the past month?

Mr. Straw

I cannot answer the second question because, with great respect, I am only the shadow Home Secretary and not the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tony Banks

It's only a matter of time, Jack.

Mr. Straw

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who made that sedentary intervention from the Back Benches with his usual good humour.

I must leave the second question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for the Secretary of State to answer. On his first question, the police currently have the general power to stop and search people with reasonable cause, but they must have reasonable cause before they can effect a stop and search—they cannot develop the reasonable cause while the search is taking place. In addition, the police have the power—under what is now section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, following the 1994 addition—to stop and search vehicles, what is in vehicles and what is in articles carried in vehicles. They can then require the occupants—both passengers and driver—to get out of the vehicle, and they can then carry out body searches of those occupants. At the moment, the police can search pedestrians, but only their bags—they cannot search their outer garments, hats or shoes. Proposed section 13B provides for the search of outer garments, hats and shoes of a pedestrian—a limited power, if my hon. Friend thinks about it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

In my hon. Friend's discussions with the Home Secretary, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, where Scotland is concerned, mentions of "the Secretary of State" in the Bill refer to the Secretary of State for Scotland and not the Home Secretary?

Mr. Straw

I did not discuss that matter with the Secretary of State but, for these purposes, "Secretary of State" means the Home Secretary in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland.

I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West that—as far as I am aware—the current legislation and the Bill contain no power in respect of cyclists. But I note that one of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends is to extend the stop-and-search powers to cover cyclists. I find that slightly surprising, but no doubt the reason will emerge during our discussions.

Mr. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the purposes of that amendment was to make sure that the Government got the Bill right? Vehicles are referred to in the Bill, but it is not certain whether that covers cycles. If it does not, it illustrates the way in which one does not always get things right by rushing through legislation. Could I press my hon. Friend on one of the key issues? Does the new power conform to the European convention on human rights? As I understand it, a suspicion is needed to justify a search under the terms of the convention.

Mr. Straw

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation about the additional powers to stop cyclists, and we will look at the amendment with interest. He also asked whether the Bill is consistent with the convention that we signed in the early 1950s on human rights in Europe. I assume that it is consistent, because the powers in respect of section 13A have been on the statute book for nearly two years, and I do not think that they have been subject to challenge. In the eyes of the convention, there cannot be any distinction between carrying out an outer body search on an occupant of a vehicle and carrying out an outer body search on a pedestrian.

When the draft Bill was given to us at the end of last week and we had to decide whether it was reasonable to agree to the timetable, one of our main concerns was whether any of the powers contained in clause 1 could conceivably be regarded as a reintroduction of the old sus law. This is a little-known fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I used to be one of the world's experts on the sus law. I earned much of my income as a very junior member of the Bar by defending a number of innocent people and—I must say—a number whom I subsequently found out were certainly not innocent against charges of being a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence contrary to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.

I must tell my hon. Friends that there is no way in which these powers—limited and circumscribed as they are—could conceivably be compared to sus. Let me explain why. Under the 1824 Act, sus created an offence of simply being a suspected person—a person or a suspected thief was the phrase used—loitering with intent to commit an indictable offence. As the police used to say, feeling one car door was not enough, but feeling two was enough to secure a conviction. Moreover, a person's previous convictions were adducible in evidence by the prosecution to prove the offence of intent, even though the arresting officer had not known of those previous convictions when he made the arrest.

The law was a wonderful piece of machinery available to the police basically to pick up anybody whom they did not terribly like. This caused hyge concern. I was concerned about it when I was defending many of my clients—whether they turned out to be innocent or not. I managed to secure the acquittal of most of them. But the offence caused great concern and anxiety, especially in the black community. It was entirely right that in 1981, following various reports into the sus law, including a report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the House abolished sus and has had nothing to do with it since. There is no way in which the power under section 13A or the power under section 13B could conceivably be compared with sus.

Mr. McNamara

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend; I am sorry, I should say my hon. Friend. He will shortly be my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks

Will he?

Mr. McNamara

Yes, because we shall win the next election.

The point at issue is this. There will be a designated area and, within that area, a constable in uniform may stop any pedestrian and search him. If a pedestrian refuses to be stopped and searched, he will have committed an offence. If that person is stopped and refuses to do what the policeman says, it will be an offence per se. That is the concern.

Mr. Straw

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and I will say more in a moment about the important balance between civil liberties and public safety.

First, the search that would be permitted under section 13B would be less onerous than the search that the House requires of any visitor every day of the week. That is a matter of fact. Secondly, if one has a power, one has to have some means of enforcing it. One cannot just say, "By the way, we would like people to submit to searches, but people who happen to be carrying bombs may be let off." Such people could say, "Sorry, officer, we do not like this." There has to be some means of enforcement and that has to be by way of an offence. In this case, it will be an offence at level 5. Moreover, no one can be prosecuted for this offence except with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is pushing the point about a parallel with sus. The sus laws existed in the days before the Crown Prosecution Service and did not require the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions or even of the chief solicitor for the area. The station inspector laid the charge and would be up the steps to the court the next morning. The chances were that a person would not be represented, not even by someone of my lowly status, as it was then, and would almost certainly be convicted, especially if the stipendiary knew who the person was. That was one of the major differences, and the many safeguards under the Bill make the provision wholly different from the sus law.

The second issue in deciding whether we would support the guillotine motion was our reaction to the original powers contained in section 13A. As some of my hon. Friends have said, when the clause was debated in Committee in February 1994, we probed the matter, as we had a duty to do, but it was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), without any opposition from any member of my party or of any other party, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, that we supported the inclusion of what became section 13A in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.

The third issue we had to weigh up was why the extension of powers was needed now. In making our judgment, we are obviously in the hands of those on whom we impose heavy responsibilities for the safety of the public—the police and the security forces. But we should not substitute their judgment for ours. Instead, we have to make our own judgments on the basis of the best evidence we are given. My hon. Friends and I listened to the advice offered by those concerned and we formed a judgment that we should accept that advice.

Another issue at which we looked in making a judgment on whether we should accept the guillotine motion was what happened on the only previous parallel occasion—the introduction of the initial prevention of terrorism Bill in November 1974. The Bill passed through all its stages in 17 hours. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who raised the issue, that it is true that there was no guillotine motion on that day. However, there was—I have the debate here—an agreed business motion which required every stage of the Bill to be completed without the House adjourning. Moreover, my hon. Friend may care to look at the length of the 1974 Bill and the amount of time that was taken. If he looks at the length of this Bill and the total time available now, he may note that there is marginally more time available, clause for clause, on this Bill. The powers in this Bill are far less onerous than the powers in the principal Bill in 1974.

Mr. Beith

Bearing in mind the precedent of 1974, what is to stop us following that procedure and not adjourning the House until we have given proper consideration to the Bill? Even if the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to agree to that, why is he resisting the amendment, under which it is proposed that we should have another three hours so that the House can have sufficient time to deal with the detailed points he mentioned?

Mr. Straw

I have read the whole of the 1974 debate and I have read the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, in which he fully supported the prevention of terrorism Bill. I think that he may have been slightly confused about what I said from a sedentary position during his speech. He said that there was a difference about something and I said that I had noticed that there was a difference between a principle and a Liberal. I merely put that on the record.

Whether to deal with this Bill by a guillotine motion or by an agreed business motion was a matter for the Leader of the House. However, I think that he took account of the fact that Easter was approaching and felt that this was an easier and tidier way in which to secure the business here and in the other place. It is a matter of fact that in November 1974, no holiday was pending, unlike now.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

As the usual channels were being used, why did the hon. Gentleman not seek the agreement of the Leader of the House by saying that the Opposition would support the Bill provided there could be agreement among all the parties on a business motion that gave adequate time—even if it was necessary to sit through the night—to the satisfaction of both sides?

Mr. Straw

Discussion in these situations are usually led by the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State, with each of the parties. At no stage, as I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, have the Liberal Democrats come to us to seek discussions. I know that we made approaches to them. Other things could have been agreed, but we, in the circumstances, do not have a complaint about the guillotine motion. I fully understand that the Liberal Democrats do; we have to take a different view.

I now come to the central issue of our debate, which is the balance between concern for individual liberty and the safety of the public, a matter that has been raised by many of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I found it interesting to read the debate in November 1974 on the prevention of terrorism Bill. On any basis, that Bill introduced far more serious and extensive powers than this Bill, including exclusion orders and many other powers that were described, at the time and subsequently, as draconian. Achieving the balance between civil liberties and public safety is difficult. However, I was particularly struck by the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North in the debate on 28 November 1974.

In fully supporting the prevention of terrorism Bill on that occasion, my hon. Friend said that we have a right to protect the lives of our constituents … We must therefore look for advice to the police, the people to whom we give the power and duty to protect us. We must consider what we can legitimately give them in extra powers so that they can protect us. But we must not forget that those powers are such that normally we would not like to bestow them.

My hon. Friend raised yesterday the issue of police powers. In 1974, he went on to say: The police have given their advice"—

to the then Home Secretary— and my right hon. Friend has responded to it. In so doing, what he has done is the least he could do.

Dealing with the difficult issue of the balance between civil liberties and public safety, my hon. Friend said: It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699-700.]

My hon. Friend got the balance there exactly right.

Mr. McNamara

My hon. Friend is right about what I said in those circumstances. At that time, I thought that I was doing the right thing. Applying the same criteria that he has adumbrated, I would now reject what was being done. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have voted for that Bill, given its effects on our legal system and the injustices that it has brought.

Mr. Straw

I understand my hon. Friend's point and I will come to it later, but we have to judge what will happen in future. It would be easy to run a country on the basis of hindsight. We must judge what may happen and balance difficult issues.

Some of my hon. Friends may argue that the threat in 1974 was greater than it is now—but how do we know? We know for certain that the Canary wharf bomb could have easily killed or maimed many more people than were killed or injured in Birmingham in 1974. We know that the Aldwych bomb could have killed—and was almost certainly intended to kill—many more people than the terrorist who ended up being killed. We also know, as the Home Secretary told the House yesterday, that the Provisional IRA is using public transport and secreting devices in overcoats, partly to evade the searches that can be conducted under existing prevention of terrorism Act powers. Our best estimate is that it could all happen again—and shortly. In that situation, I believe that we are right to be cautious, take the powers and accept the guillotine.

Of course, all my colleagues and I would have preferred much more time than has been allowed. However, in this situation, and on the information with which we were confronted, we believe that the Bill's response is proportionate to the threat and that the guillotine, although it is to be regretted, is also acceptable.

Like too many hon. Members, I have witnessed the terrible carnage, death and injury that terrorist outrages can cause. We have to balance our rightful concern for the liberty of the subject with the need to protect the public. No civil rights can be exercised from the graveyard and few can be exercised from a hospital bed. In the long run, the only way to end the prospect of terrorism from within the British Isles is by the process of negotiations to which we have given our full support. While the IRA maintains its campaign of violence, we must take appropriate and responsible measures to reduce its effects, as far as that is possible. For those reasons, we shall not stand in the way of the timetable motion and do not accept the amendment moved by the Liberal Democrats.

5.52 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I regret that my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary spoke at great length without explaining why the Opposition support a guillotine which means that the Bill will go through all its stages in one day. Many of us would accept his judgment, as I do, that he has been given information emphasising the need for urgent action. However, he did not explain why we have to have a truncated parliamentary procedure which does not allow us to examine and probe the Executive as to what is intended. I regret that fact, and I regret having to say it because no doubt the Whips will be noting, "unhelpful intervention by the hon. Member for Thurrock". I want to be clear that on this one issue I am unhappy because I should have thought that Her Majesty's Opposition would at least have said that we needed two days to deal with the Bill.

Mr. Straw

rose—

Mr. Mackinlay

My hon. Friend spoke at length, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Straw

I wish just to clarify my hon. Friend's point, with which I tried to deal in my speech. One thing that we considered carefully was the precedent set by the last Labour Government—not a Tory Government, but a Labour Government—in respect of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in 1974. On that precedent, the simple arithmetic shows that, clause for clause, more time is being allowed for this Bill than was allowed for that one, even though this one's powers are, on any analysis, less extensive than those proposed in the 1974 Bill.

Mr. Mackinlay

I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and we have to start to reassert the capacity of Back-Bench Members to examine proposals. That is our duty. I do not care what happened under past Labour Governments. People may wish to consider what will happen under the next Labour Government, because some of us are not going to be mere sheep.

This procedure is wholly inadequate. In August 1914 and September 1939 there was need for urgent legislation, but more time was made available to examine it than has been given to this. Those were more serious situations than this, though I accept what the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have said about their having information which underlines the need for urgency. My argument with them is that the action being taken is too urgent. It is not a price worth paying that we should curtail the proper examination of legislation.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay

No, I will not give way.

Not all the police representative bodies have been consulted. The Ministry of Defence Police Federation wrote to the Home Secretary this morning saying that it had not been consulted. I regret that. Will the Home Secretary say whether the chief police officers of all forces have been consulted? I assume that the request to which he referred came from the Association of Chief Police Officers, but other chief police officers not in ACPO should have been consulted as well.

Documents were not available for hon. Members fully to examine the legislation in time. No one could suggest that the majority of hon. Members could have had the opportunity to read the Bill and consult the obvious people with whom they would have liked to discuss it, such as members of the police forces, the police federations and political and civil liberties groups. We have not had time to understand the legislation. If anyone here were to pretend that there has been time, I would dispute it.

Mr. Allason

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to consult someone, he should consult two of my constituents who are still in hospital after the Aldwych bombing. Understandably, they feel strongly, as do my constituents who know those victims, that anything that can be done to avoid a repetition must be worth while.

Mr. Mackinlay

If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place earlier, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) say that things could be misunderstood. I remind him that this motion is not the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, he may discover my attitude to the Bill. This is a timetable motion. Surely he can understand that distinction.

People may misunderstand what we are discussing and there are some who would deliberately mislead them. I am arguing that the House should give proper consideration to legislation rather than bouncing it through ill considered. I pay tribute to the Clerk's Department, which could not cope with all the amendments. That is no criticism of the Clerk's Department. The amendments were not available in draft at the Vote Office until about 1 pm today. It is a charade to suggest that we have been able to study the documents and give them adequate consideration.

My hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary referred to the Committee stage. As he knows, there is not going to be a proper Committee stage. We shall be able to vote on Government amendments, but not on any which might have been tabled by other hon. Members. That is wrong. It shows how this place is run by the Executive, regardless of the views of Back Benchers, who might have been able to improve the legislation. That would have been in the interests of the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I ask him to consider that. It is wrong to assume that the Home Secretary has all the wisdom in this matter. If we are to earn our money, we should be able to improve the legislation.

I also believe that the Bill is badly drafted. May I also suggest, before Second Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Bill has some hybridity? I will explain why I think that, and I should be grateful if the possibility could be considered in advance of Second Reading. It is because on the face of it, the Bill does not provide for the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police, the British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary and other such bodies.

I have tabled amendments, but they will not be voted upon because there will not be time. In fairness, however, I must add that the Home Secretary was courteous enough to have a word with me on the subject earlier today. I took that seriously, and appreciated it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman assured me that there was no need for an amendment relating to those other police forces because the reference to "police" on the face of the Bill covered them adequately. If that is so, however—if the judgment of the hon. Member for Thurrock is wrong and that of the Home Secretary is correct—other bodies, such as the privatised police forces, the Northern Ireland airports police and the port of Tilbury police, are also covered as, indeed, are the Epping Forest keepers and the Royal Botanical Parks police. I do not believe that Parliament intends such forces to be included.

With regard to hybridity, if we are to incorporate under the Bill the jurisdiction of privatised police forces, as the Home Secretary argues, I draw the attention of the House to "Erskine May", which says that a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class

is hybrid. Clearly, if the information that the Home Secretary supplied to me is correct, the Bill will extend powers to private forces, which in my view raises the question of hybridity.

If there is time, I shall wish to press to a Division my amendment to the guillotine motion. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has rightly sought to extend the period of debate on the Bill, and my amendment would ensure that we would at least have the right to vote on amendments tabled by Back Benchers. It would not, alas, provide for the various amendments to be discussed, but we would at least have the opportunity to vote on them. I venture to suggest that some of them would improve the Bill and add to its quality—to the satisfaction of the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay.

Surely it is worth spending a few more hours in the Chamber to demonstrate that we have at least been able to deliberate on the Bill and to consider it in full measure.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Will the hon. Gentleman add one more reason to his litany of good reasons why there is no justification for taking all the stages of the Bill in one day? The objectives sought by the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) could be perfectly well served if we spread our work over two days, or overnight. If amendments are tabled, as they can be, at any time before the end of Second Reading, which will be some hours from now, people will have absolutely no chance to take them away and check objectively whether they are valid or invalid, justified or unjustified, and whether advice has been taken. That exactly replicates the worst sort of practice, in which legislation is steamrollered through by Government majority without any chance of proper parliamentary scrutiny of amendments put forward by either side of the House to any part of the Bill.

Mr. Mackinlay

I agree. There was a recent precedent, when we were discussing some of the representations on railway privatisation. Others as well as myself raised the subject of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. I was scoffed at by those on the Treasury Bench, and there was not a great deal of interest in other quarters either. None the less, amending legislation was subsequently needed; I am sure that the Leader of the House will recognise that as a matter of fact. The powers of the British Transport police had been overlooked by the civil servants, and Ministers had decided to listen to the civil servants rather than to the hon. Member for Thurrock. Extra legislation was needed. The thing was botched; that is a matter of fact.

We are in real danger of doing a disservice to the public, and to the people who have had their liberties grossly infringed by becoming the victims of bombings, if we do not give the legislation proper consideration. That sets a dangerous precedent, so I implore hon. Members to pause and reflect on the fact that we should be seen to sacrifice a few more hours of time in this place, as is our duty, to demonstrate that we have been able to probe and to understand the points that the Home Secretary makes on Second Reading.

As would happen in Committee on any other Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to explain the detail of the legislation. That is not unreasonable. There might then be concord and agreement. But I am not prepared to go along with parliamentary choreography between the occupants of the two Front Benches simply to get the Bill through. It is wrong in principle, and it is extremely unhealthy for democracy.

If such a thing ever happens again—I suspect that in the life of this Parliament other ideas will be conjured up and attempts made to bounce them through quickly—we should ensure that as well as Privy Councillors and Front-Bench Members being consulted, Back-Bench Members and Members from minority parties should be able to table their considered amendments and to feel that they have had their day in court—in the high court of Parliament—to explain and defend their position, or to be satisfied on behalf of their constituents.

I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and that if there is time—which there probably will not be—we shall be able to extend the facility of being allowed to vote on amendments to the Bill by supporting the amendment that I hope to move later to the timetable motion.

Mr. Madden

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has raised some important and pertinent matters. I hope that they will not be allowed to drift into the sand, which is always a danger in this place. As regards hybridity, which my hon. Friend mentioned, will it be possible for the Clerks to offer advice to Madam Speaker and for her, at an appropriate stage in our proceedings, to offer the House her advice on whether my hon. Friend's views are correct? It is important that we have Madam Speaker's advice, rather than relying on the Executive, because it is the Executive who may have got us into this mess in the first place.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had to leave the Chamber during the debate, and when I came back at about 4 o'clock I did not intend to speak. However, I now want to lay down one or two markers. I listened to the explanation by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), about the distinction between the original legislation involving the vagrancy Acts and—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. I had assumed that the hon. Gentleman was putting a point of order supplementary to that raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Before he continues, I must ask him whether that was correct.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not speaking on that particular point.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Then I must deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West. My understanding is that all Bills are scrutinised for hybridity before they appear in this place. I am sure that in the light of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), further scrutiny will be given, but I have no reason to suppose that there is any difficulty.

Mr. Madden

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have every sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, because I was one of the Members involved last night in trying to table amendments, and I saw the great pressures to which the Table Office was subjected by the way in which the Bill and the other amendments became available at such short notice.

I ask you again, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the matter could be fully investigated, because I have considerable doubts about whether the Clerks had a proper opportunity to consider any aspect of the Bill, let alone its hybridity. I would be grateful if you could confirm that the Clerks will offer their considered advice to Madam Speaker, and that she in turn will offer her advice to the House, in a ruling at an appropriate stage of our proceedings, so that we can all be satisfied as to whether the Bill has been properly and fully considered with a view to hybridity, and whether it is proper to proceed on the basis on which we are being invited to proceed.

Madam Deputy Speaker

I have already made the point that no doubt, in the light of the comments by the hon. Member for Thurrock, scrutiny will again be given. I do not think that we can take the matter further at this point.

Mr. Corbyn

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I drew attention to the fact there could potentially be 17 debates in two hours. We inadvertently misled the House, because the latest selection of amendments shows that there are 23 separate issues to be decided in under two hours. If Divisions are to be called on more than four of those issues, it will clearly be impossible to debate all those issues. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to examine the situation once again, as it is now bordering on the farcical. We are being asked to debate issues, and there is clearly not enough time to do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order for the Chair. The whole purpose of a debate on the timetable is to raise such matters.

6.10 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) draw a distinction, and I think that what he said sounded very convincing. I am not a rebel—in the sense that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I do not suggest that I shall be marching through the Lobbies under a Labour Government in any way other than the way the Whips want, in normal circumstances—

Mrs. Ann Taylor

Sign here.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My view has always been very simple: when we want to argue such matters, we argue them out in the parliamentary Labour party or privately with Ministers. Sometimes one puts the boot in privately as well, because that is how to sort out issues of major controversy. My view is that, whenever possible, one should seek to support one's Government.

I find what is happening tonight very worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was elected as a Member of Parliament at the same time as I was, in 1979. He can remember incidents over the years which have concerned us, particularly in civil liberties debates. The problem is that a Labour Member's mailbag is not just about housing, Inland Revenue, social security and third-world cases—it is often littered with letters from civil libertarian lobbies, because members of such lobbies always come to Labour Members to put the case for civil libertarian positions.

Mr. Simon Hughes

That is not quite true.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

It may be that they go to Liberal Members as well, but they always come to Labour Members. My party has a very proud record on civil libertarian positions, and what we are doing today will not convince the civil libertarian lobby outside the House. They will wonder what Labour was doing.

Mr. Straw

I, too, receive such letters, and I reply to them as best I can. If my hon. Friend wants one paragraph to use in replies to his constituents, I offer him this one. Again it comes from the speech made on 28 November 1974 by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—in support of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974—and exactly picks up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He said: I believe that we have a prime duty to defend the liberties of our constituents, but a Bill of Rights and a whole volume of liberties are of little value to someone who is 6 feet beneath the ground or someone whose body has been dismembered by a bomb."—, [Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699.]

That seems to express exactly the dilemma that we face. Of course we are concerned about civil liberties, but we are also concerned about the safety of the public.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I would have no trouble at all in including that paragraph in every response that I send to my constituents. The question is simply whether this Bill should go through today. This is not a case in which we are trying to delay the legislation or in which many of us disagree fundamentally with the legislation: we simply believe that there is a lack of opportunity to scrutinise it fully.

Scrutiny is not merely for the benefit of hon. Members; it is also for the benefit of people who study Hansard. There will no doubt be students in the future who want to consider what happened in the House of Commons when this Bill was passed, particularly if the Bill has a wider impact and affects groups other than those that the Home Secretary has in mind. People in the future might say that it was wrong for us simply to treat this legislation in an abbreviated procedural form because in doing so we denied the wider population the right to know what was in hon. Members' minds when they considered it.

If it is true that there are 20-odd amendments—

Mr. Tony Banks

There are 23 amendments.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

If there are 23 amendments which should have been considered, surely the House could have spent 24 hours considering them. I say that as someone who is, in principle, supportive of what is going through the House. I am not opposed to what Labour Front Benchers are doing, but I am worried that we shall stand accused at some future stage of not meeting the expectations of a civil libertarian lobby outside the House, which—if I may put it bluntly—expects a little more of my hon. Friends.

6.14 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard)

I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) for their support for this timetable motion. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for saying that they will not stand in the way of the Bill and for their confirmation that they will not vote against the timetable motion.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and some other Opposition Members suggested that we should proceed at a slower pace, and he indicated why he would oppose the motion. I accept that he would like more time to consider the Bill's provisions, but there is an urgent need for them.

In his remarks, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed managed both to minimise and to exaggerate the nature of the provisions. He minimised them when he said that they are simply technical provisions and that the police already carry out the activities provided for by the Bill. There may be some argument about that in relation to the two provisions for which there are currently common law powers, but those common law powers—the powers to impose a cordon and to impose parking restrictions—are uncertain. The point does not apply to this legislation because it does not apply to the other three extra powers contained in the Bill.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman for Berwick-upon-Tweed was exaggerating the proposals' significance when he embarked on his comparison between them and the original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill of 1974. I endorse the analysis made by the hon. Member for Blackburn on the size of that Bill as compared to the size of this Bill and his conclusion that such an analysis would reveal that more time was available for consideration of the provisions of this Bill than there was for that Bill.

There is, however, a further point that is of infinitely greater importance. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill of 1974 was genuinely breaking new ground and really did involve new matters of principle that had not previously been considered by the House. It was put before the House as a new response to an unprecedented threat, and the House had to consider it on that basis. These powers do not fall into anything like that category and there is no new question of principle raised by this Bill.

If we examine the power that has given rise to the greatest controversy— the power to stop and search pedestrians—it is to fill a lacuna in the law whereby the police have the power, when a senior police officer has designated a particular area for a particular time, to stop and search the occupant of a vehicle or to stop a pedestrian and to search his bag, but whereby they do not have the power to search a pedestrian's jacket pocket. As we all know, it is extremely easy to fit inside that jacket pocket a device that may be small but whose effect is immensely potent and could cause enormous damage. I have said that the power to search fills a lacuna, so I believe that it is impossible for any hon. Member in any part of the House to suggest that any real question of principle is involved in the provision of that power, which represents a modest extension.

Mr. Tony Banks

My question might be more appropriate for Second Reading, but, in the event of that power being exercised and statistics being kept, can the Home Secretary tell me whether they will be kept on the basis of ethnic origin? Will we know the skin colour of the person who has been stopped?

Mr. Howard

All the monitoring provisions that currently apply under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will apply under the Bill. Monitoring, including ethnic monitoring, will take place, so I believe that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are wholly met.

Dr. Godman

I have a number of concerns about the Bill, one of which is that, at first glance, I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has offered us an incorrect interpretation of the role of the procurator fiscal in criminal investigations and proceedings. That needs to be looked at again.

Mr. Howard

I confess that I venture into Scottish law with a good deal of trepidation. If the hon. Gentleman would care to provide us with more detail of his concerns, outside the Chamber if he likes, about the role of the procurator fiscal, I assure him that we will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)

My right hon. and learned Friend has stressed that no new principle is involved in clause 1 as it relates to section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Does he also agree that the substance of clause 1 can be found in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and that therefore its basic principle has been debated by the House every year since the 1991 Act came into being? That confirms my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that clause 1 will implement nothing new in principle.

Mr. Howard

My hon. Friend is right. All the powers, save one, in the Bill have been in existence in Northern Ireland for some considerable time, so they are certainly not new in any sense to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The Home Secretary is a lawyer and he knows as well as I do that one of the most controversial matters ever to come before the courts has been the detailed legislation on stop and search and related powers. They have been the subject of a great legal argument, much controversy and many legal appeals. Instead of spending six hours in total debating a Bill of several clauses, many of which contain many subsections, and many groups of amendments, what is the argument to stop the House of Commons of the United Kingdom from taking a further 12 hours or 18 hours, if that is the will of Parliament, to complete its considerations? What is the argument against us using the time between now and the recess to the full and sitting through the night, as we have done on many occasions in the past, to make sure that the legislation is properly scrutinised?

Mr. Howard

That question was answered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he introduced the timetable motion: it is a question of balance. We want the powers in the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. We believe that they have a part to play in the more effective prevention of terrorism and that they have the potential to save life. In those circumstances, I believe that it is incumbent upon the House to proceed with all due dispatch and to deal with the matter expeditiously, so that it can be considered in another place before the Easter recess, and so that the police can have those powers available to them.

Mr. Beith

The police have been raising this matter for ages.

Mr. Howard

If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he said from a sedentary position that we have taken ages. He said earlier that the Bill had been gathering dust on the shelf at the Home Office for a long time and suggested that the powers had been asked for years ago. That is not the case. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier, Ministers came to a conclusion about the need for those powers last week. In fact, Ministers came to a conclusion about that on Thursday. I sent a message out from the meeting at which that decision was made to invite the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the hon. Member for Blackburn and the spokesmen for all the other Opposition parties to meet me on that day so that I could communicate to them at the earliest opportunity the decision that the Government had reached and the way in which we hoped to proceed. We proceeded at the earliest possible moment. I may have explained that in slightly less detail in my statement yesterday, and I am happy to supply hon. Members with that greater detail today.

Mr. Beith

The one question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered is: when did the police first ask him for those powers?

Mr. Howard

I specifically explained that yesterday. In the course of the discussions that I had with the police in the aftermath of the South Quay bomb, the need for those additional powers evolved and was identified.

Mr. Mackinlay

When?

Mr. Howard

There was no precise moment. The discussions continued with the police in parallel with discussions that I was having with ministerial colleagues. Opposition Members may shake their heads in disbelief, but I fear that that only reinforces and confirms their utter ignorance of the processes of government. I have been endeavouring to adopt a non-partisan approach to the debate.

Mr. Beith

It is a struggle.

Mr. Howard

Yes, sometimes it is a struggle, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Such is the history of how matters evolved. Let me say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and other hon. Members that I contacted the spokesmen for the Opposition parties at the earliest possible moment that I could have done after Ministers had reached a decision, and I came to the House at the earliest possible moment thereafter.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I have just one more question on the matter. Will the Home Secretary say clearly0 to the House when the police first discussed the matter with him? We have reason to believe that it was some significant time before the Canary wharf bomb. Those matters may have been discussed more recently, but it is understood that they have been under discussion between the police and the Home Office for many months. Is the Home Secretary denying that, and if so, will he do so at the Dispatch Box, in front of the House?

Mr. Howard

The powers were the subject of discussion between me and the police in the aftermath of the South Quay bomb. That is right.

Mr. Hughes

And before?

Mr. Howard

The powers were the subject of discussion between me and the police in the aftermath of the South Quay bombing—

Mr. Hughes

Not before?

Mr. Howard

Not before the South Quay bomb. I had discussions about the powers with the police after the bomb. That is when they took place. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Banks

To hear this Home Secretary talk about being non-partisan is very scary. The Home Secretary keeps on talking about "my discussions with the police", so will he tell us, if he has not already done so, which particular police officers were involved and which organisation?

Mr. Howard

I will not identify particular police officers, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I discussed those matters with the senior police officer who has particular responsibility within the police service for dealing with the terrorist threat. That is the appropriate person with whom to have such discussions.

Mr. McNamara

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he discussed these matters after the South Quay bomb. Can he tell the House whether representatives of his Department and his officials discussed those powers with the police before that bomb? That is point behind hon. Members' questions. Those powers were an issue before the bomb and were the subject of discussions with his Department, if not with him or his junior Ministers.

Mr. Howard

Obviously, I have to be careful in what I say at the Dispatch Box. To my knowledge, discussions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred did not take place. The discussions to which I referred—which took place between me and senior police officers charged with the responsibility of combating terrorism—did not emerge from discussions at official level. To my knowledge, the discussions were not the culmination of previous discussions at official level—the discussions evolved during my discussions with the police officers. That is the most complete answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Mr. Madden

I ask the Home Secretary for some facts on which we may be able to form a judgment about the need for the additional powers. First, will he tell us— over whatever is the most convenient period— how many people have been arrested and charged with terrorist-related offences in Northern Ireland, where stop-and-search powers have applied for many years, as he has just confirmed? Secondly, how many people have been arrested and charged in the City and in the Metropolitan police area under the existing stop-and-search powers in the past month?

Mr. Howard

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that those questions are more precisely related to the need for the powers—which I hope we will be discussing later this evening. He was courteous enough to give me notice that he wished to ask a question of that kind and later in the debate I shall do my best to provide as much information as I can in relation to that point.

We were discussing the limited nature of the stop-and search-power, which has been the most controversial of the powers that the Bill provides. I make no claim to the kind of expertise in the sus law to which the hon. Member for Blackburn laid claim—Icannot match his expertise in that field. However, I feel that he gave the House a clear and absolutely compelling analysis of the differences between this power and the sus law. They are completely different. It is completely misleading to suggest to the House, and far more to people outside the House, that the Bill in any way brings back the sus law. It is a completely different and much more limited power, hedged around with safeguards that were acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman.

It is quite clear that there is a need for the powers—and I think that even many hon. Members who spoke in opposition to the timetable motion acknowledged that. The need for these powers is urgent. As was said by a number of contributors to the debate—otably in a powerful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) —the greatest civil liberty to which our constituents aspire, and the civil liberty which we in this House should do most to protect, is the civil liberty not to be blown up by a terrorist bomb and not to be shot by a terrorist bullet.

The police need these powers as a matter of urgency to more effectively protect those civil liberties of our constituents. It is on that basis that I commend the timetable motion to the House.

6.33 pm

Mr. Beith

I remind hon. Members that the choice before them is whether to debate this matter on the basis on which each group of amendments will receive no more than five minutes' debate, which will not allow time for Divisions, or whether we will have an additional three hours in which to ensure that the powers are on the statute book well within the timetable outlined by the Home Secretary. The choice before hon. Members is not whether they deny the police powers that will save lives, but whether we work out these powers carefully enough to ensure that they are helpful, and that civil liberties are safeguarded, and have an additional three hours—no more—to do so. That is the subject on which I now invite hon. Members to support me in my amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 261.]

Division No. 92]	[18.33 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Livingstone, Ken
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Loyden, Eddie
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Lynne, Ms Liz
Barnes, Harry	McGrady, Eddie
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Mackinlay, Andrew
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	McNamara, Kevin
Bennett, Andrew F	Madden, Max
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Maddock, Diana
Burden, Richard	Mahon, Alice
Canavan, Dennis	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Chidgey, David	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Pike, Peter L
Cohen, Harry	Rendel, David
Corbett, Robin	Salmond Alex
Corbyn, Jeremy	Sedgemore, Brian
Cunningham, Roseanna	Skinner, Dennis
Dafis, Cynog	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)	Tyler, Paul
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Wallace, James
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Wareing, Robert N
Gerrard, Neil	Wise, Audrey
Godman, Dr Norman A
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)	Mr. Simon Higel Jones
Lewis, Terry	Mr. Nigel Jones.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Fabricant, Michael
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Alexander, Richard	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Fishburn, Dudley
Amess, David	Forman, Nigel
Arbuthnot, James	Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Forth, Eric
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Fowler, Rt hon Sir Norman
Ashby, David	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	French, Douglas
Bates, Michael	Gale, Roger
Batiste, Spencer	Gallie, Phil
Beggs, Roy	Gardiner, Sir George
Bellingham, Henry	Garnier, Edward
Beresford, Sir Paul	Gillan, Cheryl
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Body, Sir Richard	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Gorst, Sir John
Booth, Hartley	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Boswell, Tim	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Grylls, Sir Michael
Bowis, John	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Hamilton, Neil (Talton)
Brandreth, Gyles	Hampson, Dr Keith
Brazier, Julian	Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Bright, Sir Graham	Hannam, Sir John
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Hargreaves, Andrew
Brown, M (Brio & Cl'thorpes)	Harris David
Browning, Mrs Angela	Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)	Hawkins, Nick
Burt, Alistair	Hawksley, Warren
Butcher, John	Hayes, Jerry
Butler, Peter	Heald, Oliver
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Carrington, Matthew	Hicks, Robert
Cash, William	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Horam, John
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Clappison, James	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Hunt, Sir john (Ravensbourne)
Coe, Sebastian	Hunter, Andrew
Congdon, David	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Jack, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Jenkin, Bernard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Jessel, Toby
Couchman, James	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Cran, James	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Key, Robert
Davis, David (Booth ferry)	King Rt Hon Tom
Day, Stephen	Kirkhope, Timothy
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Knapman, Roger
Devlin, Tim	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Duncan Smith, Iain	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Dunn, Bob	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Durant, Sir Anthony	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Dykes, Hugh	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Leigh, Edward
Elletson, Harold	Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Lidington, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Lord, Michael
Evennett, David	Luff, Peter
Faber, David	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Smyth, The Reverend Martin
MacKay, Andrew	Spencer, Sir Derek
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Spicer, Sir Micheal (S Worcs)
Maitland, Lady Olga	Spink, Dr Robert
Major, Rt Hon John	Spring, Richard
Malone, Gerald	Sproat, Iain
Mans, Keith	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Marland, Paul	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Marlow, Tony	Steen, Anthony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Stephen, Michael
Merchant, Piers	Stem, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Stewart, Allan
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)	Streeter, Gary
Moate, Sir Roger	Sumberg, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James	Sweeney, Walter
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector	Sykes, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Moss, Malcolm	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Nelson, Anthony	Temple-Morris, Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael	Thomason, Roy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Nicholls, Patrick	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Thurnham, Peter
Norris, Steve	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Tracey, Richard
Ottaway, Richard	Tredinnick, David
Paice, James	Trend, Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Trimble, David
Patten, Rt Hon John	Trotter, Neville
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Twinn, Dr Ian
Pawsey, James	Viggers, Peter
Pickles, Eric	Walden, George
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)
Porter, David (Waveney)	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Waller, Gary
Powell, William (Corby)	Ward, John
Rathbone, Tim	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Waterson, Nigel
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Watts, John
Richards, Rod	Wells, Bowen
Riddick, Graham	Whitney, Ray
Robathan, Andrew	Whittingdale, John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Widdecombe, Ann
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Wilkinson, John
Ross, William (E Londonderry)	Willetts, David
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Wilshire, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wolfson, Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Wood, Timothy
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)	Yeo, Tim
Shersby, Sir Michael	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Sims, Roger	Tellers for the Noes:
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Mr. Derek Conway and
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81.

Main Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 256, Noes 44.

Division No. 93]	[18.47 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Amess, David
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Arbuthnot, James
Alexander, Richard	Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Allason, Rupert (Torboy)	Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Ashby, David	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	French, Douglas
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Gale, Roger
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Gallie, Phil
Bates, Michael	Gardiner, Sir George
Batiste, Spencer	Garnier, Edward
Beggs, Roy	Gillan, Cheryl
Bellingham, Henry	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Beresford, Sir Paul	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Gorst, Sir John
Body, Sir Richard	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Booth, Hartley	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Boswell, Tim	Grylls, Sir Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bowis, John	Hampson, Dr Keith
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Brandreth, Gyles	Hannam, Sir John
Brazier, Julian	Hargreaves, Andrew
Bright, Sir Graham	Harris, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Browning, Mrs Angela	Hawkins, Nick
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)	Hawksley, Warren
Burt, Alistair	Hayes, Jerry
Butcher, John	Heald, Oliver
Butler, Peter	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hicks, Robert
Carrington, Matthew	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Cash, William	Horam, John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Clappison, James	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Hunter, Andrew
Coe, Sebastian	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Congdon, David	Jack, Michael
Conway, Derek	Jenkin, Bernard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Jessel, Toby
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Couchman, James	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Cran, James	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Key, Robert
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	King, Rt Hon Tom
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Kirkhope, Timothy
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Knapman, Roger
Day, Stephen	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Devlin, Tim	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Duncan Smith, Iain	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Dunn, Bob	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Durant, Sir Anthony	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Dykes, Hugh	Leigh, Edward
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Elletson, Harold	Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Lidington, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Lord, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Luff, Peter
Evennett, David	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Faber, David	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael	MacKay, Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Maitland, Lady Olga
Fishburn, Dudley	Major, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel	Malone, Gerald
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)	Mans, Keith
Forth, Eric	Marland, Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Merchant, Piers
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Mills, Iain

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Sproat, Iain
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Moate, Sir Roger	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James	Steen, Anthony
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector	Stephen, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Stern, Michael
Moss, Malcolm	Stewart, Allan
Nelson, Anthony	Streeter, Gary
Neubert, Sir Michael	Sumberg, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Sweeney, Walter
Nicholls, Patrick	Sykes, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Norris, Steve	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Temple-Morris, Peter
Ottaway, Richard	Thomason, Roy
Paice, James	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Patten, Rt Hon John	Thurnham, Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Pickles, Eric	Tracey, Richard
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Trend, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)	Trimble, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Trotter, Neville
Powell, William (Corby)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Rathbone, Tim	Viggers, Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Walden, George
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)
Richards, Rod	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Riddick, Graham	Waller, Gary
Robathan, Andrew	Ward, John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Waterson, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Watts, John
Ross, William (E Londonderry)	Wells, Bowen
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Whitney, Ray
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy	Whittingdale, John
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Widdecombe, Ann
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wiggin, Sir, Jerry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Wilkinson, John
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)	Willetts, David
Shersby, Sir Michael	Wilshire, David
Sims, Roger	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wolfson, Mark
Smyth, The Reverend Martin	Wood, Timothy
Spencer, Sir Derek	Yeo, Tim
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Spink, Dr Robert	Mr. Simon Burns and
Spring, Richard	Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Loyden, Eddie
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Lynne, Ms Liz
Barnes, Harry	McGrady, Eddie
Beth, Rt Hon A J	Mackinlay, Andrew
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	McNamara, Kevin
Bennett, Andrew F	Madden, Max
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Maddock, Diana
Burden, Richard	Mahon, Alice
Canavan, Dennis	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Chidgey, David	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Pike, Peter L
Cohen, Harry	Rendel, David
Corbett, Robin	Salmond, Alex
Corbyn, Jeremy	Sedgemore, Brian
Cunningham, Roseanna	Skinner, Dennis
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Tyler, Paul
Gerrard, Neil	Wallace, James
Godman, Dr Norman A	Wareing, Robert N
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Wise, Audrey
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)	Tellers for the Noes:
Lewis, Terry	Mr. Simon Hughes and
Livingstone, Ken	Mr. Nigel Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill:—

Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading

1—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(3) The proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(4) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings in Committee.

(5) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(6) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(7) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Conclusion of proceedings

2.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).—

1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
3. (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time.—

1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and
2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on Consideration of any Lords Amendments shall be completed at the sitting on 3rd April and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3 above.—

1. (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
2. (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
3. (iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments; and
4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
3. (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

5.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

1. (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
208
2. (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
2. (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
3. (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Business Committee

6. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order. Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

8. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at any day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if the sitting is suspended before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order prevents any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.