| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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.
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
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.
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 forNorth-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
and he added:
I say hear, hear to that.
"to enable them to stop and search pedestrians",
"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.]
2 Apr 1996 : Column 182
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |