| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): As the usual channels were being used, why did the hon. Gentleman not seek the agreement of the Leader of the House by saying that the Opposition would support the Bill provided there could be agreement among all the parties on a business motion that gave adequate time--even if it was necessary to sit through the night--to the satisfaction of both sides?
Mr. Straw: Discussion in these situations are usually led by the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State, with each of the parties. At no stage, as I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, have the Liberal Democrats come to us to seek discussions. I know that we made approaches to them. Other things could have been agreed, but we, in the circumstances, do not have a complaint about the guillotine motion. I fully understand that the Liberal Democrats do; we have to take a different view.
I now come to the central issue of our debate, which is the balance between concern for individual liberty and the safety of the public, a matter that has been raised by many of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I found it interesting to read the debate in November 1974 on the prevention of terrorism Bill. On any basis, that Bill introduced far more serious and extensive powers than this Bill, including exclusion orders and many other powers that were
described, at the time and subsequently, as draconian. Achieving the balance between civil liberties and public safety is difficult. However, I was particularly struck by the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North in the debate on 28 November 1974.
In fully supporting the prevention of terrorism Bill on that occasion, my hon. Friend said that
My hon. Friend raised yesterday the issue of police powers. In 1974, he went on to say:
to the then Home Secretary--
Dealing with the difficult issue of the balance between civil liberties and public safety, my hon. Friend said:
My hon. Friend got the balance there exactly right.
Mr. McNamara:
My hon. Friend is right about what I said in those circumstances. At that time, I thought that I was doing the right thing. Applying the same criteria that he has adumbrated, I would now reject what was being done. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have voted for that Bill, given its effects on our legal system and the injustices that it has brought.
Mr. Straw:
I understand my hon. Friend's point and I will come to it later, but we have to judge what will happen in future. It would be easy to run a country on the basis of hindsight. We must judge what may happen and balance difficult issues.
Some of my hon. Friends may argue that the threat in 1974 was greater than it is now--but how do we know? We know for certain that the Canary wharf bomb could have easily killed or maimed many more people than were killed or injured in Birmingham in 1974. We know that the Aldwych bomb could have killed--and was almost certainly intended to kill--many more people than the terrorist who ended up being killed. We also know, as the Home Secretary told the House yesterday, that the Provisional IRA is using public transport and secreting devices in overcoats, partly to evade the searches that can be conducted under existing prevention of terrorism Act powers. Our best estimate is that it could all happen again--and shortly. In that situation, I believe that we are right to be cautious, take the powers and accept the guillotine.
Of course, all my colleagues and I would have preferred much more time than has been allowed. However, in this situation, and on the information with which we were confronted, we believe that the Bill's response is proportionate to the threat and that the guillotine, although it is to be regretted, is also acceptable.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
I regret that my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary spoke at great length without explaining why the Opposition support a guillotine which means that the Bill will go through all its stages in one day. Many of us would accept his judgment, as I do, that he has been given information emphasising the need for urgent action. However, he did not explain why we have to have a truncated parliamentary procedure which does not allow us to examine and probe the Executive as to what is intended. I regret that fact, and I regret having to say it because no doubt the Whips will be noting, "unhelpful intervention by the hon. Member for Thurrock". I want to be clear that on this one issue I am unhappy because I should have thought that Her Majesty's Opposition would at least have said that we needed two days to deal with the Bill.
Mr. Mackinlay:
My hon. Friend spoke at length, but I will give way to him.
Mr. Straw:
I wish just to clarify my hon. Friend's point, with which I tried to deal in my speech. One thing that we considered carefully was the precedent set by the last Labour Government--not a Tory Government, but a Labour Government--in respect of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in 1974. On that precedent, the simple arithmetic shows that, clause for clause, more time is being allowed for this Bill than was allowed for that one, even though this one's powers are, on any analysis, less extensive than those proposed in the 1974 Bill.
Mr. Mackinlay:
I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and we have to start to reassert the capacity of Back-Bench Members to examine proposals. That is our duty. I do not care what happened under past Labour Governments. People may wish to consider what will happen under the next Labour Government, because some of us are not going to be mere sheep.
This procedure is wholly inadequate. In August 1914 and September 1939 there was need for urgent legislation, but more time was made available to examine it than has been given to this. Those were more serious situations than this, though I accept what the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have said about their having information which underlines the need for urgency.
My argument with them is that the action being taken is too urgent. It is not a price worth paying that we should curtail the proper examination of legislation.
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mackinlay:
No, I will not give way.
Not all the police representative bodies have been consulted. The Ministry of Defence Police Federation wrote to the Home Secretary this morning saying that it had not been consulted. I regret that. Will the Home Secretary say whether the chief police officers of all forces have been consulted? I assume that the request to which he referred came from the Association of Chief Police Officers, but other chief police officers not in ACPO should have been consulted as well.
Documents were not available for hon. Members fully to examine the legislation in time. No one could suggest that the majority of hon. Members could have had the opportunity to read the Bill and consult the obvious people with whom they would have liked to discuss it, such as members of the police forces, the police federations and political and civil liberties groups. We have not had time to understand the legislation. If anyone here were to pretend that there has been time, I would dispute it.
Mr. Allason:
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to consult someone, he should consult two of my constituents who are still in hospital after the Aldwych bombing. Understandably, they feel strongly, as do my constituents who know those victims, that anything that can be done to avoid a repetition must be worth while.
Mr. Mackinlay:
If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place earlier, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) say that things could be misunderstood. I remind him that this motion is not the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, he may discover my attitude to the Bill. This is a timetable motion. Surely he can understand that distinction.
People may misunderstand what we are discussing and there are some who would deliberately mislead them.I am arguing that the House should give proper consideration to legislation rather than bouncing it through ill considered. I pay tribute to the Clerk's Department, which could not cope with all the amendments. That is no criticism of the Clerk's Department. The amendments were not available in draft at the Vote Office until about 1 pm today. It is a charade to suggest that we have been able to study the documents and give them adequate consideration.
My hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary referred to the Committee stage. As he knows, there is not going to be a proper Committee stage. We shall be able to vote on Government amendments, but not on any which might have been tabled by other hon. Members. That is wrong. It shows how this place is run by the Executive, regardless of the views of Back Benchers, who might have been able to improve the legislation. That would have been in the interests of the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I ask him to consider that. It is
wrong to assume that the Home Secretary has all the wisdom in this matter. If we are to earn our money, we should be able to improve the legislation.
I also believe that the Bill is badly drafted. May I also suggest, before Second Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Bill has some hybridity? I will explain why I think that, and I should be grateful if the possibility could be considered in advance of Second Reading. It is because on the face of it, the Bill does not provide for the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police, the British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary and other such bodies.
I have tabled amendments, but they will not be voted upon because there will not be time. In fairness, however, I must add that the Home Secretary was courteous enough to have a word with me on the subject earlier today.I took that seriously, and appreciated it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman assured me that there was no need for an amendment relating to those other police forces because the reference to "police" on the face of the Bill covered them adequately. If that is so, however--if the judgment of the hon. Member for Thurrock is wrong and that of the Home Secretary is correct--other bodies, such as the privatised police forces, the Northern Ireland airports police and the port of Tilbury police, are also covered as, indeed, are the Epping Forest keepers and the Royal Botanical Parks police. I do not believe that Parliament intends such forces to be included.
With regard to hybridity, if we are to incorporate under the Bill the jurisdiction of privatised police forces, as the Home Secretary argues, I draw the attention of the House to "Erskine May", which says that
is hybrid. Clearly, if the information that the Home Secretary supplied to me is correct, the Bill will extend powers to private forces, which in my view raises the question of hybridity.
"we have a right to protect the lives of our constituents . . . We must therefore look for advice to the police, the people to whom we give the power and duty to protect us. We must consider what we can legitimately give them in extra powers so that they can protect us. But we must not forget that those powers are such that normally we would not like to bestow them."
"The police have given their advice"--
"and my right hon. Friend has responded to it. In so doing, what he has done is the least he could do."
"It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."--[Official Report,28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699-700.]
"a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |