| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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.
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.
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |