§ 6.57 p.m.
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, before we start the next business, perhaps I may make a brief statement following a Statement made in another place earlier today. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I explain briefly the arrangements that are being made for consideration of a Bill to provide additional powers to the police for the prevention of terrorism.
Copies of a draft Bill are now available in the Printed Paper Office. The Bill itself will be published tomorrow and it is expected that it will pass through all its stages in another place tomorrow. It is intended that your Lordships will be invited to take all stages of the Bill on Wednesday before the business already on the Order Paper for Wednesday. My noble friend the Leader of the House has tabled a Business of the House Motion to that effect.
The purpose of this very brief statement is to give noble Lords as much advance notice of the likely effects of the Statement made in another place earlier today on the business in your Lordships' House.
§ Lord Rodgers of Quarry BankMy Lords, I thought that the statement by the Government Chief Whip would be responded to by Her Majesty's Opposition. There is a very important point to make about the statement.
I speak on behalf of these Benches in so far as this is a matter that I anticipate will be dealt with by Home Office Ministers. We are disturbed about bringing forward this legislation in the closing days of this parliamentary period. When the Bill comes before the House, we shall want to explore the point at which the Government found it necessary to bring it forward.
The Government will recall that when the original legislation on terrorism was brought before the House 20 years ago, it was immediately after the Birmingham bombings. Your Lordships' House very readily agreed with the other place, in view of the acute urgency of the matter and the new situation that had just arisen, that it was right to take that Bill through all its stages in a single day. I am not aware, unless we can be presented with evidence for it, that there has been any event (I am glad to say) within recent days which would appear to justify passing a Bill through this House with great haste in the closing stages before the Recess.
As I understand it, the Bill inescapably involves some restrictions on the individual. And your Lordships' House and Parliament generally have been cautious about agreeing such matters without careful discussion. Indeed, in 1975, when the original legislation on the 70 prevention of terrorism was before the House, there was a substantial debate. Remarks were made on both sides of the House about the need to ensure that the liberties of the citizen were looked after properly and that the Bill did not become part of the statute book permanently.
That is a view which we expressed in this House when we debated the renewal order only a month or so ago. I do not understand why, when we had that debate, no hint was given to your Lordships' House that new legislation of this kind was being brought forward. If it was not urgent one month ago or there was no justification for setting the Bill before the House then, why do we have to have it in the closing days before the Easter Recess? It will be difficult for a number of noble Lords to be present and to give the Bill the treatment it deserves.
I say that without prejudice to the contents of the Bill, the necessity for it or the debate which we shall have on it. However, I should like an explanation because noble Lords have been taken by surprise by the announcement just made. We should like to know why we should consider the Bill on Wednesday and why it cannot be postponed until the House returns. That will depend on whether the House is told of a new emergency which we had not anticipated and of which we are not aware which justifies bringing the legislation forward.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, the reason neither I nor a colleague rose to speak when the Government Chief Whip made the announcement was that I had been advised that my colleagues in another place, who are fully apprised of the importance of the issue, were satisfied that this business merited the exceptional course upon which the Commons decided.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is correct in saying that it is a surprise. I await, as he does, with a great deal of interest the cause for the urgency and the issues themselves. That is understandable. But it is within my memory in this House in the past 10 or 12 years that on perhaps two or three occasions the House agreed, in the specific atmosphere and on the specific subject of terrorism, to take new legislation. We are therefore conscious of the fact that if the Government feel it necessary and if my colleagues in another place had not been consulted far more fully than we have been as yet—I make no complaint about that—and are satisfied in relation to the need for the legislation, then we are in the hands of the Government.
If the Government wish to deal with the matter in all stages in the other place tomorrow and if the House has already determined to rise on Wednesday, then the two options are quite clear. First, we could do as the Government suggest and deal with all stages on Wednesday; or, secondly, we could find some other day. The other day may be Thursday, Friday, or it may be that we have to wait until after the Recess. I imagine that all those matters were considered by my colleagues.
We on these Benches recognise that it must be important for the Government to propose what they have. We trust that they are conscious of the niceties of procedure in both Houses and especially in this House. 71 Therefore, though I share the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and pose the same questions, we shall not attempt to interfere with the timetable proposed.
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to reply briefly. I am grateful for the words of the Opposition Chief Whip and for those of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we all share in the interests of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. If we did not regard this matter as important, we would not bring it forward in the manner that we have.
A great deal of discussion and thought has taken place. There has been consultation with the police and, I understand, consultation between the Home Secretary and his opposite number in the shadow Cabinet. The conclusion is that the Bill is needed and needed now. The police want it as quickly as possible. I hope that the House agrees that if the enactment saves one life over the Easter break, then the speed of the Bill's passage will have been more than justified.
There will be time for debating some of the issues on Wednesday. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Blatch, who will be dealing with the Bill on behalf of the Government, will be able to reply more substantively to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
§ Lord EltonMy Lords, I take it that the substantial discussion—if there is need for one—on the need for urgency, will take place on the Business Motion that the Bill be taken in one day. We therefore have time to reflect on the balance between civil liberty and civil safety which is clearly here at issue.
§ Lord MonkswellMy Lords, I wonder whether I can ask the Government to review the announcement that they have just given to the House. If we look back to 1974 we can see that the original Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed in a 24-hour period shortly after the excesses of the Birmingham bombing. Some of us feel that the result of that action was that we introduced legislation in haste, realising that we would repent it at our leisure. It did a great deal of damage by aiding the IRA as a recruiting sergeant.
At that time there was a demonstrable need for something to be done by Parliament and that was done precipitously. The problem with which we are faced as parliamentarians is that there does not appear to be any justification that has been made public to parliamentarians about the urgency of the situation. As I understand it, we shall be presented with a Business Motion on Wednesday to consider the passage of the Bill through all its stages on that day.
I ask the Government to put forward their Business Motion tomorrow, Tuesday, for the consideration of the House. That will give time for consideration of the debate that will be conducted tomorrow on the subject, giving the terms of the emergency of which the Government are apparently apprised and effectively a day's delay before we consider the Bill with which the Government will present us. I put that forward as a plea. 72 It would give us some measured opportunity to consider the circumstances of the situation of which the Government will no doubt apprise us.
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, the main points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will be taken up during the course of the debate on Wednesday. However, on the issue of the Business Motion, the reason why I came before the House this evening was to let your Lordships know of the Government's intentions and to warn people of both the Motion that my noble friend the Leader of the House is tabling this evening on the Order Paper for debate on Wednesday and also to let the House know of our intended timings.
The Bill would not be dealt with in this way unless we already had prior agreement and also if we did not believe that it was important and urgent for the Bill to be agreed before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess. I hope that the House will recognise the need for this legislation when it comes to be debated on Wednesday and also that the reason I came forward with the Statement today is to keep everybody well informed of our intentions.