| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howard: The dreadful murders to which my hon. Friend referred are remembered far beyond Lichfield and Mid-Staffordshire. We shall take every possible step to prevent a recurrence of acts of that kind, which is why we have brought forward these proposals. The authorisation of the Secretary of State will not negate the ability of the police to exercise the powers during the 48-hour period, which have to be confirmed within the 48-hour period. If they are not confirmed, they will fall when the Secretary of State announces his decision. Until that moment, those powers are available for use by the police.
In relation to the Labour party's attitude, I have acknowledged the extent to which it is prepared to co-operate, and my understanding is that it does not intend to stand in the way of the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn for what he said, and tomorrow we shall see the precise form of that co-operation.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish):
Does the Home Secretary agree that this is a draconian measure? If it is logical to rush it through the House
Mr. Howard:
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not sensible. If concerns develop about the operation of these powers--and I do not expect them to--there will be ample opportunities for hon. Members to express those concerns, without going to the lengths suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West):
If these powers are so important for the police, to enable them to combat terrorism, many of us are finding it hard to understand what has happened or who has intervened to make this issue so urgent for tomorrow. Why on earth could not the Home Secretary at least have hinted at it when the PTA was debated on 14 March? It is clear that these provisions are draconian and, as always, they will bear disproportionately on working-class communities throughout the United Kingdom.
If the Home Secretary really wants to see a restoration of the ceasefire, why does he not repatriate Irish prisoners to the Republic of Ireland, which he has been able to do for the past five months but has failed to do so far--instead of ferreting around and trying to find measures of this sort to restore his extremely damaged reputation?
Mr. Howard:
The purpose of these powers is to protect working-class communities in this country--and I think that they will recognise that and value the extra protection that the powers will provide.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
Does the Home Secretary recognise that many people do not think that the PTA has served the country well and believe that it is a serious attack on the civil liberties of a large number of people? The amendments that he has proposed today--to be rushed through in an atmosphere of crisis tomorrow--amount to a return of the sus laws by the back door, with an open-ended commitment to keep those new powers there when surely, as a confidence-building measure towards the peace process, we should be getting rid of the PTA and the anti-libertarian aspects that go with it.
Mr. Howard:
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but I think that it is not widely shared outside the House, and it certainly is not widely shared inside the House. This is not, in any sense, a return to the sus law--and it is quite wrong to give any indication that it is. These are tightly restricted powers, available on the designation of a particular area, for a particular time, in particular circumstances, by a senior police officer. Although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman holds his views strongly, he has served no useful purpose in seeking to confuse people about the extent of the powers that I propose. The powers are very limited and they are not, in any sense, a return to the sus laws.
Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington):
Ordinary people, especially those who live in my constituency around Heathrow, will support the measures. I am getting a little sick and tired of the apologists for terrorists on the Labour Benches trying to undermine my right hon. and learned Friend's job.
Mr. Howard:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I believe that these measures are necessary and that they constitute a balanced response to the threat that we face. I very much hope that they will gain support from both sides of the House.
4.57 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement. In the light of the statement just made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the business for tomorrow will now be as follows: consideration of timetable motion on, followed by proceedings on, the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill. The business previously announced for that day will be taken on a later occasion.
On Wednesday 3 April, in addition to the business previously announced, the House may be asked to consider any Lords amendments that may be received. The House will also wish to know that the business on Tuesday 16 April will now be the Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury):
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us that information, and I confirm that the Labour party will not stand in the way of the legislation that has been announced today. Obviously, the lack of time for greater consultation is very much regretted, certainly by the Labour party and, I hope, by both sides of the Chamber. Notwithstanding that, we are willing to facilitate the passage of the limited legislation on the time scale proposed.
However, we certainly do not want our co-operation on this measure to be taken as a precedent on any other occasion. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear, the Labour party is seized of the importance of fighting terrorism. It is on the basis of the security briefings that have been given that we are facilitating the measure and that we accept the unusual procedures that the Leader of the House has put forward.
The right hon. Gentleman said that tomorrow's business would have to be postponed, but he was not very definite about when we might expect the particular clauses of the Family Law Bill to be debated. Those clauses are of importance to many hon. Members, and early notification of when they are to be debated would be of assistance to all of them.
Mr. Newton:
I am grateful for the very constructive response that the hon. Lady has given on behalf of the Labour party, matching that given by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I note the comments that she made in expressing that co-operation. I, too, had hoped that it would be possible to proceed with the Family Law Bill tomorrow, but I have already announced a full slate of business for the first week when we return. I hope that we shall be able to proceed with it very soon thereafter.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle):
I welcome the statement today, not least because, as my right hon. Friend may remember, I took him to task during the previous business statement for rushing through the divorce Bill. The various Christian organisations that wrote--at least one wrote to the Prime Minister--to object to the speed will also welcome today's announcement.
I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), which is important, because we feel that the Bill is a vital social measure. Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise--this is an important opportunity for him to do so--that the Bill will be brought back at a time when hon. Members are not rushing back from their holidays; when they are not rushing off at the end of the week, perhaps after a one-line Whip or anything like that; that votes will be taken at a sensible time; and that all hon. Members, on the pay roll and otherwise, will have a full and free vote, so that the Government cannot be accused of rushing through quickie divorce legislation?
Mr. Newton:
It would be pretty hard to accuse the Government convincingly of rushing the Family Law Bill through, as I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend last Thursday. I note, however, that one advantage--from his point of view--of what I have just announced is that the Bill will now take a little more time.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey):
Given the controversial nature of the Government's proposals for dealing with the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill, will there will be a business committee, on which all parties would be represented, to discuss the way in which the measure is handled?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |