Previous SectionIndexHome Page


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

2 Apr 1996 : Column 162

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.

2 Apr 1996 : Column 163

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

2 Apr 1996 : Column 164

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.


Next Section

IndexHome Page